GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 37.3m
39
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.9

An absolute masterclass in shot creation carried the offensive burden single-handedly. He relentlessly hunted mismatches on the perimeter, punishing drop coverage with lethal pull-up precision. This explosive scoring barrage completely dictated the tempo and overwhelmed the opposing defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +32.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 37.3m -19.8
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.6

Hot perimeter shooting was subtly undermined by getting caught out of position on back-door cuts. He provided excellent spacing, but struggled to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack. The defensive slippage just barely outweighed his highly efficient offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 34.2m -18.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 32.1m
16
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.7

Ball-stopping tendencies in the mid-post bogged down the offensive flow and allowed the defense to set. He was frequently late to recognize double-teams, resulting in disrupted timing on kick-outs. While he secured his area defensively, the offensive friction severely hampered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 32.1m -17.1
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Rudy Gobert 30.1m
12
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Vertical spacing and elite screen-setting generated a massive gravitational pull in the half-court. He deterred multiple drives simply by occupying the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage midrange looks. This foundational interior presence stabilized the entire lineup.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 30.1m -16.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaden McDaniels 25.8m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Exceptional effort fighting through screens couldn't overcome a disjointed offensive showing. He repeatedly short-armed finishes in traffic when attacking closeouts. The defensive intensity was there, but the lack of scoring punch ultimately dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +52.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 25.8m -13.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Naz Reid 28.1m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Fantastic rim-deterrence highlighted a surprisingly robust defensive performance. However, he forced several contested looks early in the shot clock that sparked opponent transition opportunities. The erratic offensive decision-making ultimately neutralized his excellent work on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.2
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 28.1m -15.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
Mike Conley 17.5m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Veteran pacing and flawless shot selection kept the offense humming during his minutes. He masterfully manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to create clean looks for the roll man. A few struggles navigating physical screens defensively kept his overall impact relatively neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 17.5m -9.3
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Tunnel vision on straight-line drives led to offensive fouls and stalled possessions. He brought palpable energy in transition, but struggled to read the secondary line of defense in the half-court. This lack of playmaking feel resulted in a notably negative overall stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 17.4m -9.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jaylen Clark 11.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Complete lack of offensive gravity allowed his defender to aggressively pack the paint. He rushed his perimeter attempts, failing to punish the defense for ignoring him. Without any scoring threat to respect, the team's spacing completely collapsed while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 11.8m -6.3
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Over-dribbling against set defenses neutralized his quickness advantage. He was targeted repeatedly in pick-and-roll actions, giving up easy penetration on the defensive end. A failure to keep the ball moving quickly resulted in a net-negative showing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 5.8m -3.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 39.4m
41
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+22.4

Dominance on both ends of the floor fueled a massive overall impact, driven by aggressive downhill drives that collapsed the defense. His exceptional point-of-attack pressure completely disrupted the opponent's perimeter rhythm. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he created masked any minor inefficiencies.

Shooting
FG 17/32 (53.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +13.6
Raw total +43.3
Avg player in 39.4m -20.9
Impact +22.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 4
S Derrick White 38.8m
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.6

Value was dragged down by settling for contested pull-ups instead of attacking the teeth of the defense. His signature weak-side rim protection remained elite, but the offensive stagnation proved costly. The inability to convert on drive-and-kick sequences ultimately resulted in a net-negative outing.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 38.8m -20.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.9

A barrage of forced, early-clock perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive rating. While his defensive rotations were surprisingly sharp, the empty possessions from deep killed the team's momentum. Opponents actively dared him to shoot, and his inability to connect stalled out multiple half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 32.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 30.9m -16.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 28.8m
19
pts
18
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.1

Relentless positioning around the rim generated a massive positive swing, punishing the interior with second-chance opportunities. He sealed off drop defenders perfectly in the pick-and-roll, leading to high-percentage finishes. This physical dominance in the paint anchored the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 28.8m -15.2
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jordan Walsh 19.8m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Offensive invisibility tanked his overall value during his rotation minutes. He passed up open looks on the wing, killing spacing and allowing his defender to freely roam the paint. A few timely closeouts couldn't salvage a completely passive offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 19.8m -10.5
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 29.6m
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

Constant off-ball movement warped the opposing defensive shell and created driving lanes for teammates. He held up surprisingly well when targeted on switches, using his length to contest without fouling. The sheer threat of his catch-and-shoot release dictated the geometry of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 29.6m -15.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

A lack of assertiveness in isolation situations limited his ability to shift the defense. He frequently picked up his dribble too early against traps, leading to stagnant possessions. Without his usual perimeter gravity, the spacing suffered noticeably during his shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 17.6m -9.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 16.2m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

High-energy weakside rotations and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly productive defensive stint. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead capitalizing on well-timed baseline cuts. This disciplined, two-way execution perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 16.2m -8.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Errant perimeter attempts negated the value of his relentless effort on loose balls. He struggled to create separation against physical closeouts, resulting in rushed mechanics. Despite the offensive struggles, his willingness to crash the glass kept his impact from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -44.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 13.7m -7.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 5.1m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Made the most of a brief cameo by executing decisively as a pop threat. Heavy feet in drop coverage conceded a couple of easy floaters, but he offset that by setting bone-crushing screens. His physicality in short bursts provided just enough value to stay above water.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -130.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.1m -2.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0