GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 37.8m
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

An uncharacteristically passive offensive night saw his scoring volume plummet, as he struggled to find separation against aggressive double-teams. He tried to compensate by digging in defensively (+4.4 Def) and fighting for loose balls, but the lack of scoring punch was too much to overcome. The opponent successfully neutralized his primary weapon.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 37.8m -17.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Royce O'Neale 32.8m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Despite knocking down his perimeter looks at a high clip, his overall impact cratered due to defensive lapses and poor rotational timing. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, bleeding points on the other end that erased his offensive contributions. A prime example of shooting gravity not translating to a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 32.8m -15.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 31.6m
29
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.0

Carried the offensive load with a massive volume-shooting performance, aggressively attacking the midrange to overcome poor perimeter efficiency. His relentless motor translated to a stellar +7.5 hustle score, keeping plays alive on both ends. This was a classic high-usage, high-energy outing that successfully bullied the opposing wings.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 36.5%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +7.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 31.6m -14.7
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jordan Goodwin 26.7m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Bogged down the offense with stagnant decision-making and inefficient finishing around the basket. While he competed hard on the defensive end (+3.4 Def), his inability to orchestrate clean sets or hit open looks severely handicapped the unit. The negative impact stems directly from broken offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 26.7m -12.3
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Nick Richards 21.6m
4
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Provided solid rim protection (+4.2 Def) but was largely invisible on the offensive end. His inability to finish through contact or command the paint allowed the defense to completely ignore him in the half-court. The lack of offensive gravity ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -42.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 21.6m -10.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

Sparked the second unit with decisive penetration and confident perimeter shooting, doubling his usual scoring output. His biggest contribution, however, came from suffocating point-of-attack defense (+7.2 Def) that completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. A phenomenal two-way performance from a role player stepping up.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 29.3m -13.5
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

A complete offensive zero who failed to convert any of his spot-up opportunities, severely shrinking the floor for his teammates. While his defensive rotations were passable (+3.5 Def), his inability to punish closeouts made him a liability. The spacing issues he created directly fueled the double-digit negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 22.7m -10.4
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 20.5m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Snapped a hot shooting streak with a rough finishing night inside, missing several bunnies he normally converts. However, he salvaged his value entirely through high-IQ defensive anchoring (+5.6 Def) and active screen-setting. He proved he can positively impact the game even when his touch abandons him.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 20.5m -9.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Looked completely lost during a brief first-half stint, bleeding points through missed rotations (-1.6 Def). He offered zero energy plays or offensive creation to justify his floor time. A highly detrimental shift that forced an early hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -44.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.6
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 7.7m -3.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Logged pure garbage-time minutes at the end of the rotation. Did nothing to impact the game positively or negatively outside of basic cardio. The slight negative rating is purely statistical noise.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.1m -1.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Managed to splash a quick perimeter jumper during his extremely brief time on the court. Defensive miscommunications (-0.8 Def) in transition wiped out the minor offensive boost. Ultimately a wash in a tiny sample size.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 3.1m -1.4
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Saw the floor only for the final few possessions when the outcome was decided. Generated absolutely no statistical footprint during his run. The slight negative rating is purely contextual noise.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.1m -1.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 36.9m
28
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.4

Offensive explosion drove a massive +22.0 box score impact, continuing a highly efficient stretch of finishing around the rim. His scoring volume spiked aggressively without sacrificing shot quality. Active hands and solid defensive positioning further cemented a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.4%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 36.9m -17.0
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Alperen Sengun 34.7m
18
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.3

Continued his streak of highly efficient interior scoring, punishing mismatches in the post to buoy his box score metrics. However, his overall net impact was muted despite the offensive success. Defensive limitations in space likely dragged down what was otherwise a clinical shooting night.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 34.7m -16.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Anchored his positive impact through highly disruptive defensive rotations (+5.2 Def) rather than just scoring. He found a steady offensive rhythm inside the arc, breaking a recent slump of inefficient shooting. The combination of rim deterrence and timely shot-making resulted in a solid net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +38.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 32.0m -14.8
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 29.5m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Absolute menace in the margins, generating a massive +8.8 hustle score through relentless loose-ball recoveries and offensive rebounding. While his shooting efficiency was subpar, his sheer energy and defensive disruption completely tilted the possession battle. This was a textbook example of impacting winning without needing a clean offensive game.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +8.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 29.5m -13.6
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Reed Sheppard 26.9m
7
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.0

A brutal shooting night cratered his offensive impact, as he struggled to find the range on his perimeter looks. Despite the bricked jumpers, he salvaged his overall rating by digging in defensively (+6.8 Def) and fighting through screens. His playmaking and hustle kept him from being a complete liability on a cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 26.9m -12.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Caught absolute fire from the perimeter, stretching the defense with a barrage of timely triples that spiked his offensive rating. This massive scoring surge was paired with aggressive point-of-attack defense (+5.2 Def). He completely changed the geometry of the floor during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 27.3m -12.7
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
JD Davison 17.8m
5
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.5

Maximized his brief time on the floor with perfect shot selection and crisp ball movement. He didn't force any action, taking only what the defense gave him while maintaining solid defensive positioning. This low-mistake, high-efficiency approach yielded a surprisingly strong net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 17.8m -8.2
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Steven Adams 16.5m
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Provided a sturdy, physical presence in limited minutes, dominating the glass to secure extra possessions. His value came entirely from screening angles and positional defense (+3.2 Def) that deterred drives. A highly efficient stint where he played perfectly within his role.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 16.5m -7.6
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 13.3m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Operated strictly as a drop-coverage anchor during his brief run, using his length to alter shots at the rim (+4.4 Def). He saw almost no offensive usage, entirely deferring to the guards. His positive impact was purely a product of stabilizing the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 13.3m -6.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Barely saw the floor in a brief garbage-time cameo. Failed to register any meaningful statistics or impact metrics during his short stint. The negative total is largely statistical noise from a tiny sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 2.5m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Forced two quick perimeter shots in extremely limited action, missing both to drag down his box score impact. He offered no hustle stats to offset the empty offensive possessions. A highly forgettable micro-stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 2.5m -1.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0