GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 38.3m
18
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.6

Dominant defensive versatility and highly efficient interior scoring drove a strong positive impact. Bullied smaller defenders in the paint while simultaneously blowing up opponent pick-and-rolls on the other end. Acted as the primary connective tissue for the offense, elevating his scoring output through sheer physical mismatches.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.3
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 38.3m -19.7
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Brandon Ingram 37.2m
37
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

An absolute offensive masterclass fueled a massive impact score, as he relentlessly punished defenders from all three levels. Shouldered a massive usage rate without sacrificing defensive effort, anchoring the team's success during critical stretches. His ability to hit heavily contested mid-range jumpers completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 15/30 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 41.9%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 37.2m -19.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.4

A heavy volume of missed three-pointers dragged his net impact into the negative, overshadowing excellent defensive metrics. Failed to break down the primary point-of-attack defense, leading to forced perimeter shots late in the clock. His inability to navigate aggressive perimeter coverage defined a highly inefficient offensive night.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.0
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 33.0m -17.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jakob Poeltl 26.8m
7
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite rim protection and relentless work on the glass anchored a highly impactful performance despite a drop in offensive usage. Controlled the paint masterfully, altering numerous shots and securing extra possessions. His pattern of erasing shots at the rim deterred countless drives and anchored the defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.8
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 26.8m -13.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja'Kobe Walter 24.4m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Exceptional hustle metrics kept his overall impact in the green despite significant shooting struggles. Chased down loose balls and fought through screens defensively to compensate for his inability to find the bottom of the net. A pattern of securing long rebounds and diving for loose balls kept his impact afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 24.4m -12.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 24.4m
9
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.6

Surgical playmaking and highly efficient shot selection kept his impact slightly positive. Broke down the defense consistently to generate high-quality looks for teammates without turning the ball over. A pattern of flawless pick-and-roll navigation allowed him to orchestrate the offense efficiently.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 24.4m -12.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.3

Highly efficient scoring and excellent defensive positioning drove a massive positive impact during his rotation minutes. Stretched the floor effectively while battling hard on the interior to secure crucial extra possessions. A dominant stretch of floor-spacing and weak-side rim protection defined his massive bench impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 21.2m -10.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

A drastic reduction in offensive involvement limited his ability to positively influence the game. While he didn't make glaring mistakes, his passive approach allowed the opposing second unit to dictate the tempo. His reluctance to attack aggressive frontcourt matchups broke his recent streak of highly productive outings.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 11.2m -5.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 11.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

A disastrous shooting performance completely tanked his impact score, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt. Poor defensive positioning compounded the offensive woes, making him a target for opposing ball-handlers. A pattern of forcing heavily contested shots early in the shot clock completely tanked his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total -5.1
Avg player in 11.1m -5.7
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 10.8m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A quiet, low-usage stint resulted in a nearly neutral impact score. Converted his few offensive opportunities but failed to leave a significant mark on the defensive end or in the hustle categories. His reluctance to attack closeouts defined a completely passive offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 10.8m -5.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Generated a quick positive impact in garbage time by drawing fouls and converting at the line. His brief appearance was strictly limited to late-game clock management. Drawing a quick shooting foul during the final minute was the sole driver of his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.6m -0.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Lonzo Ball 34.0m
8
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.5

Elite defensive metrics were completely overshadowed by disastrous offensive execution that cratered his overall score. Firing blanks from beyond the arc resulted in numerous empty trips that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His pattern of settling for contested deep looks actively harmed the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 26.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.7
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 34.0m -17.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 33.8m
15
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

High offensive efficiency fueled a positive overall impact, as he consistently found high-quality looks within the flow of the offense. Strong positional defense further stabilized his minutes on the floor. Continued his recent pattern of highly effective shot selection to punish defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 33.8m -17.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.5

A heavy volume of missed perimeter shots severely dragged down his net impact. While he generated strong hustle metrics and kept the ball moving, the sheer number of empty possessions from deep stalled the offense. His inability to find a rhythm against aggressive point-of-attack coverage defined his struggles.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 33.8m -17.4
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 31.2m
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.4

Despite strong defensive metrics and excellent shot selection, his overall impact dipped slightly into the negative. A lack of secondary playmaking and struggles to secure loose balls allowed opponents to neutralize his highly efficient scoring. His inability to anchor the paint against physical bigs during the second half dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 31.2m -16.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Larry Nance Jr. 18.1m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Excellent defensive positioning and timely rotations anchored his positive impact during his stint. Capitalized on limited offensive touches to provide a highly efficient scoring punch without forcing bad shots. His ability to anchor the second-unit defense during the second quarter defined his positive stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 18.1m -9.3
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

A massive surge in offensive production drove a highly positive impact score. Excellent finishing around the rim and smart off-ball cuts allowed him to provide a massive scoring punch off the bench. A dominant stretch of rim-running in the third quarter defined his breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 31.9m -16.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Snapping a streak of efficient games, poor perimeter shooting heavily penalized his overall impact. Although he provided solid defensive resistance and decent hustle, clanking all of his attempts from deep short-circuited offensive sets. His pattern of settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers completely stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 19.5m -10.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Capitalized on transition opportunities and smart cuts to generate a highly efficient offensive stint. Played within his role perfectly, avoiding turnovers and taking only high-percentage looks. Punishing a sleeping defense with perfectly timed backdoor cuts defined his highly efficient offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 14.1m -7.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Maximized his short stint on the floor by providing efficient scoring and solid interior presence. Avoided costly mistakes and converted his limited opportunities to keep the second unit's offense humming. A quick burst of efficient pick-and-pop execution defined his highly productive short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 12.6m -6.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Luke Travers 11.0m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Missed shots near the basket negated the value of his defensive contributions, resulting in a perfectly neutral impact. Struggled to convert looks in traffic, which offset the positive energy he brought through hustle plays. His inability to finish through contact on drives completely nullified his energetic defensive closeouts.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 11.0m -5.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0