GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 39.0m
27
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.5

High-octane shot creation carried the offense, though the sheer volume of missed attempts suppressed his overall net rating. Breaking down the primary defender consistently created spray-out opportunities that kept the defense scrambling. Despite the inefficiency, aggressive downhill attacking proved essential to the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 39.0m -18.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Lauri Markkanen 35.8m
20
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Constant off-ball motion and aggressive offensive rebounding compensated for a streaky shooting night from the perimeter. He leveraged his size on mismatches in the post to generate high-quality looks when the outside shot wasn't falling. High usage combined with steady glass-cleaning cemented a strong positive influence.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 35.8m -16.8
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 31.7m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

A heavy volume of forced, contested jumpers from the perimeter severely undercut his overall efficiency. While he showed flashes of strong weak-side help defense, his offensive decision-making stalled multiple possessions. Poor shot quality ultimately outweighed any athletic defensive plays he made.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 31.7m -15.0
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 30.5m
11
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Dominant interior positioning and flawless shot selection resulted in a remarkably efficient two-way performance. Anchoring the paint with exceptional drop-coverage discipline completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt. This physical dominance in the restricted area was the primary engine behind his massive net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 30.5m -14.4
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Svi Mykhailiuk 28.1m
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.4

Crisp ball movement and decisive cuts to the basket drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He capitalized on closeouts with smart secondary playmaking, keeping the offensive machinery humming. Solid positional defense ensured his scoring contributions translated directly to a positive bottom line.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 28.1m -13.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Reckless drives into traffic and poor ball security heavily penalized his final impact score. Reading the secondary line of defense proved difficult, resulting in momentum-killing turnovers. A distinct lack of offensive poise derailed what could have been a productive outing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 22.7m -10.7
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Consistently targeted in the pick-and-roll, his inability to navigate screens led to a disastrous defensive stint. Offensively, he was entirely passive, failing to leverage his size in the post or stretch the floor. Getting hunted on switches while offering zero offensive gravity resulted in a cratered net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -60.2
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 20.3m -9.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

An absolute deep freeze from the field completely derailed the offense during his minutes. Settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups rather than moving the ball within the system proved costly. This catastrophic shot selection was the sole driver of his massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 14.9m -7.0
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 13.1m
4
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite defensive rebounding fundamentals allowed him to control the glass during a brief but highly effective stint. He utilized his veteran savvy to draw offensive fouls and disrupt driving lanes, masking his declining lateral mobility. The ability to secure extra possessions was the driving force behind his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 13.1m -6.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

A rushed offensive approach during garbage-time minutes led to empty possessions and a quick negative swing. Forcing shots out of the flow of the offense prevented him from establishing any rhythm. The brief cameo was defined entirely by his inability to capitalize on limited touches.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -105.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 3.4m -1.6
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Capitalized instantly on a late-game spot-up opportunity to maximize his brief time on the floor. The flawless execution on his lone touch generated a highly efficient micro-stint. He perfectly fulfilled his role as a floor spacer in a specialized lineup package.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 40.2m
33
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.6

Elite defensive rebounding and exceptional hustle metrics fueled a commanding overall performance despite significant struggles from deep. Dictating the tempo out of the pick-and-roll allowed him to punish drop coverages with methodical precision. The sheer gravity of his offensive creation easily outweighed the efficiency hit from his missed triples.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +10.1
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 40.2m -19.0
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 6
S Austin Reaves 40.0m
22
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

An abysmal showing from three-point range severely penalized his otherwise robust two-way effort. Excellent rebounding from the guard position and active hands in passing lanes generated high defensive marks. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of bricked perimeter looks acted as an anchor on his final net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 40.0m -18.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S LeBron James 34.3m
17
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.3

A barrage of empty possessions from beyond the arc and costly live-ball turnovers completely erased his playmaking contributions. Forcing isolation plays late in the shot clock dragged his overall efficiency into the red. The stark contrast between his raw production and negative net impact highlights a night derailed by poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 34.3m -16.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Rui Hachimura 29.2m
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Efficient perimeter execution kept his baseline value afloat, but a complete lack of secondary playmaking limited his ceiling. Defensive rotations were sharp during the second quarter, successfully walling off baseline drives. However, occasional lapses in transition defense prevented his solid shooting from translating into a higher overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 29.2m -13.8
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 13.4m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Starved for touches in a drastically reduced role, his offensive footprint practically vanished compared to his recent dominant stretch. He managed to salvage a positive score through disciplined rim protection and verticality contests. The lack of offensive integration ultimately capped his influence on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 13.4m -6.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 20.2m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite not missing a shot, a severe penalty from turnovers or off-ball fouls completely tanked his final rating. He brought commendable ball-pressure at the point of attack, generating positive defensive metrics. However, his inability to safely initiate the offense rendered his brief stint a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 20.2m -9.6
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 18.2m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Perfect execution around the basket wasn't enough to overcome the hidden costs of poor defensive positioning and likely foul trouble. Biting on pump fakes compromised the interior defense during the non-starter minutes. This lack of discipline dragged his otherwise flawless shooting night into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 18.2m -8.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Marcus Smart 17.5m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and perimeter harassment defined a gritty, low-usage stint. His offensive output was entirely reliant on spot-up opportunities, failing to generate any interior pressure. The high hustle score perfectly encapsulates a night where effort plays compensated for a one-dimensional shot profile.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +48.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 17.5m -8.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 13.9m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Exploited repeatedly in space, his inability to contain quicker forwards led to a damaging defensive score. He offered decent effort on the glass, but was entirely neutralized as a pick-and-pop threat. Being targeted relentlessly on switches ultimately caused a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 13.9m -6.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jake LaRavia 13.2m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Subpar finishing on interior attempts muted the value of his floor-spacing presence. He provided a marginal boost through timely defensive rotations, but struggled to create separation off the dribble. Ultimately, it was a quiet, replacement-level outing defined by offensive hesitancy.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 13.2m -6.3
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0