GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 31.4m
19
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Flashes of brilliant shot-making from beyond the arc masked a performance riddled with structural flaws. A staggering rate of turnovers and defensive lapses bled away all of his scoring value, leaving him as a net negative. He needs to drastically improve his ball security when attacking closeouts.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 31.4m -18.1
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Lauri Markkanen 30.4m
18
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Settling for contested looks on the perimeter dragged down his scoring efficiency despite a decent rebounding effort. A massive accumulation of penalties—likely offensive fouls and bad passes—completely wiped out his baseline production. The opposing frontcourt successfully sped up his processing, leading to uncharacteristic mistakes.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -25.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 30.4m -17.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 24.8m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Solid spot-up execution and active off-ball movement initially built a strong foundational score. That positive momentum was entirely undone by a brutal stretch of live-ball turnovers and defensive fouls. The inability to protect the basketball overshadowed an otherwise capable offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 24.8m -14.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 19.4m
14
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+15.6

Operating as a high-post hub, his elite playmaking and near-perfect finishing at the rim dismantled the opposing coverage. He absorbed contact well and limited his usual foul troubles, allowing his massive offensive creation to shine through. This was a masterclass in utilizing size to create angles for cutting teammates.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 19.4m -11.2
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Keyonte George 19.1m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-29.2

An absolute disaster class in shot selection resulted in a catastrophic offensive rating that doomed his team's spacing. Compounding the bricked jumpers were numerous giveaways that fueled transition opportunities going the other way. He completely lost his confidence against the point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -62.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -19.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total -18.2
Avg player in 19.1m -11.0
Impact -29.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Snapping a streak of highly efficient outings, he struggled to finish through contact and settled for poor looks from deep. The real damage came from a massive penalty drain, indicating severe issues with offensive fouls or careless post entries. He failed to adapt when the defense took away his preferred pick-and-pop actions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 30.5m -17.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

His signature slow-paced disruption yielded solid defensive metrics and a few timely deflections. However, his hesitance to shoot allowed the defense to sag, and a string of sloppy passes completely negated his defensive hustle. The inability to punish rotations ultimately made him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 24.6m -14.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

A sharp regression from his recent scoring tear was driven by forced mid-range attempts and poor finishing in traffic. While he showed surprising resistance on the defensive end, a high volume of mistakes with the ball in his hands tanked his overall rating. The defense clearly game-planned to take away his primary driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 24.4m -14.0
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.8

Active hands and disciplined closeouts generated a solid defensive foundation during his minutes. He offset a lot of that good work by coughing up the basketball in traffic, nearly dropping his net impact into the red. Still, his willingness to connect the offense with quick reads kept him marginally positive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 18.2m -10.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

Struggling to break down his primary defender led to a stagnant offensive showing and several forced passes. He managed to contribute slightly on the defensive end, but the lack of rim pressure severely limited his utility. The speed of the game seemed a half-step too fast for his current processing speed.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -50.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 17.1m -9.8
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
HOU Houston Rockets
S Reed Sheppard 31.1m
9
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.9

Defensive tenacity defined this outing, as he racked up deflections and perimeter stops to generate a massive +13.2 defensive score. Unfortunately, his offensive rhythm stalled out, and a staggering amount of turnovers nearly erased his elite work on the other end. His point-of-attack pressure remains a major asset even when his jumper isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +13.2
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 31.1m -18.0
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
S Amen Thompson 30.8m
5
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
-11.9

A sudden drop in scoring aggression completely cratered his offensive value compared to recent outings. While he remained engaged defensively, a catastrophic string of giveaways and offensive fouls completely tanked his final rating. He struggled to process the defensive coverages, forcing passes into tight windows.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 26.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 30.8m -17.8
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 29.9m
25
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.0

Elite shot-making efficiency drove a massive offensive rating, while his length disrupted passing lanes to generate a stellar defensive score. However, a heavy volume of live-ball turnovers and fouls (-17.2 penalty drain) prevented his overall impact from reaching astronomical levels. He remains a lethal primary option when he gets to his spots, though the ball security needs tightening.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +44.3
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +36.2
Avg player in 29.9m -17.2
Impact +19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 28.4m
27
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.2

Serving as the offensive hub, he carved up the interior with highly efficient touch around the rim to spike his baseline value. This scoring surge was partially offset by a high rate of turnovers as the defense collapsed on his post-ups. Even with the ball-security issues, his gravitational pull in the half-court dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 28.4m -16.3
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Despite finding an efficient rhythm from the floor, his overall impact slipped into the red due to a severe accumulation of negative plays. Careless mistakes and foul trouble completely erased the value of his perimeter shooting. Cleaning up those unforced errors is necessary to keep him on the floor in tight games.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +52.6
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 27.1m -15.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

A heavy reliance on perimeter isolation led to a highly inefficient shooting night, capping his offensive ceiling. He managed to stay above water by grinding out loose balls and providing steady point-of-attack defense. The scoring bump from his recent averages was purely volume-driven rather than a sign of improved rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 20.1m -11.5
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Okogie 19.6m
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Energy and disruption were his calling cards here, contributing solid weak-side help and hustle plays to buoy his defensive metrics. Poor shot selection and a handful of costly mistakes dragged his net impact into negative territory regardless. He provided a necessary physical spark, but the offensive execution lacked discipline.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 19.6m -11.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Steven Adams 16.9m
13
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.1

Dominating the glass allowed him to generate crucial second-chance opportunities without needing plays called for him. He played a remarkably clean game, avoiding the turnover bug that plagued his teammates while anchoring the interior defense. His physical screen-setting and positional discipline were essential to the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +64.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.9
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 16.9m -9.7
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Clint Capela 14.3m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Capitalizing on limited minutes, he provided a highly efficient vertical threat in the pick-and-roll. His rim protection and mistake-free execution ensured that nearly all of his positive contributions translated directly to the bottom line. It was a textbook display of maximizing a specialized role without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 14.3m -8.2
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Finding soft spots in the defense allowed him to convert efficiently during his brief stint on the floor. He gave some of that value back through defensive lapses, but avoided major turnover penalties to keep his impact positive. Opportunistic cuts to the basket provided a nice secondary scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 9.7m -5.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 7.3m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Floating on the perimeter resulted in a handful of empty possessions and minimal engagement on the glass. A couple of quick fouls and turnovers quickly pushed his brief appearance into the negative. He struggled to find the pace of the game during his short rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 7.3m -4.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 4.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Failing to register a single counting stat offensively highlighted a completely invisible stint on that end of the floor. Minor defensive miscommunications and a lack of overall aggression resulted in a quick negative drain. He was entirely neutralized by the opposing backcourt pressure.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.8
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1