GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 36.0m
22
pts
6
reb
12
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite playmaking from the elbows and decisive scoring moves generated massive offensive value. Consistently beat double-teams with pinpoint passes, elevating the efficiency of the entire unit. His physical mismatches forced defensive rotations that he expertly picked apart all night.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +40.8
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 36.0m -20.4
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 36.0m
32
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.7

An absolute masterclass in shot-making, punishing defenders with a barrage of contested jumpers and explosive drives. His hyper-efficient scoring completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. Despite the massive offensive load, he maintained solid defensive positioning to round out a stellar performance.

Shooting
FG 13/18 (72.2%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 36.0m -20.4
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 7
S Jaden McDaniels 33.0m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Defensive versatility was overshadowed by clunky offensive execution and ill-advised perimeter shots. Struggled to finish through contact, wasting several valuable possessions in the half-court. Despite solid on-ball pressure, his offensive inefficiency ultimately dragged down the lineup's overall production.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 33.0m -18.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Provided a crucial floor-spacing element by hunting transition threes and attacking closeouts. The high volume of perimeter makes stretched the defense and opened up driving lanes for teammates. While his point-of-attack defense was average, the offensive firepower easily justified his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 29.4m -16.7
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Rudy Gobert 24.0m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Controlled the painted area with elite rim protection and timely rolls to the basket. Generated significant value by altering shots and securing contested rebounds to end defensive possessions. A highly efficient, role-perfect performance that stabilized the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 24.0m -13.7
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 29.6m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Blended reliable stretch-big shooting with active interior defense to provide steady two-way value. His ability to hit trail threes forced opposing bigs out of the paint, altering the geometry of the floor. Solid positional awareness on defense ensured he wasn't exploited in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 29.6m -16.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Mike Conley 17.1m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Operated as a stabilizing force, initiating sets cleanly and avoiding costly mistakes. Picked his spots carefully, hitting timely shots when the defense sagged off. A low-usage, high-IQ stint that kept the offense humming without demanding the spotlight.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +33.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 17.1m -9.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

High-energy hustle plays could not compensate for a complete lack of offensive rhythm. Rushed his perimeter looks and failed to bend the defense off the dribble. The inability to capitalize on open space made him an offensive liability during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 11.8m -6.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylen Clark 10.7m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Maximized every second of floor time with perfect shooting execution and relentless defensive ball pressure. Punished defensive rotations by knocking down open looks without hesitation. A flawless spark-plug performance that injected immediate life into the lineup.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 138.9%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +45.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 10.7m -6.0
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, forcing wild shots that led to empty possessions. Failed to organize the second unit, resulting in stagnant, isolation-heavy offense. His brief appearance actively derailed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 7.9m -4.5
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Burned the final seconds of the clock in a mop-up duty role. Registered no measurable events on either end of the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Inserted solely for the final sequences of the game. Showed slight hustle but lacked the minutes to make any tangible impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -0.4
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
-3.5

Late-game cameo resulted in negative impact due to defensive breakdowns in transition. Did not attempt a shot or initiate offense during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 31.9m
25
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.1

Relentless downhill attacks and elite finishing at the rim drove a highly efficient offensive outing. Combined high-level shot creation with active hands in passing lanes to generate easy transition opportunities. His ability to dictate the tempo completely overwhelmed the opposing point-of-attack defenders.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 31.9m -18.1
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Devin Vassell 31.7m
22
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

A massive mid-range scoring surge masked a brutal night from beyond the arc. The sheer volume of missed threes capped what could have been a dominant offensive rating, though his ability to bail out broken possessions kept the offense afloat. Opposing defenses lived with his contested long twos, which he converted at an elite clip.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 31.7m -18.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 28.6m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Offensive stagnation defined his minutes, as a string of clanked mid-range pull-ups derailed possession quality. Although he provided solid rotational defense, his inability to punish mismatches left the offense playing 4-on-5. The sheer volume of wasted touches outweighed any stabilizing veteran presence he offered.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 28.6m -16.2
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

Impact plummeted due to a barrage of bricked catch-and-shoot jumpers that stalled offensive momentum. While his weak-side defensive rotations remained solid, the sheer volume of empty half-court possessions crippled his overall value. Opponents actively sagged off him, effectively blowing up the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 25.3m -14.3
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luke Kornet 23.8m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Anchored the interior with exceptional drop-coverage positioning that spiked his defensive impact. Did not demand the ball, instead generating massive value through high-level screen setting and vertical spacing. His low-usage, mistake-free execution perfectly complemented the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.3
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 23.8m -13.5
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
22
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.1

Bully-ball drives and timely perimeter shooting created a massive positive swing in offensive efficiency. Paired this aggressive downhill mentality with stout point-of-attack defense that disrupted opponent sets. His physical two-way dominance dictated the flow of the game whenever he stepped on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.3
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 26.3m -14.9
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 19.6m
17
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Carved up the interior defense with decisive drives and excellent touch around the basket. Avoided settling for outside shots, instead leveraging his physical tools to generate high-percentage looks in the paint. This sustained rim pressure provided a crucial, highly efficient scoring punch off the bench.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -39.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 19.6m -11.2
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

Complete offensive zeroes combined with defensive miscommunications cratered his overall impact. Struggled to stay in front of his assignments, bleeding points on the defensive end without offering any rim resistance. A highly detrimental stint where he looked outmatched by the speed of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.7%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 15.2m -8.7
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kelly Olynyk 13.5m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Capitalized on limited minutes by executing perfectly within the flow of the offense. Smart backdoor cuts and quick decision-making on the perimeter kept the ball moving and punished defensive lapses. A highly efficient, low-mistake stint that provided a steadying veteran presence.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 13.5m -7.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

A lack of offensive aggression and minimal defensive disruption resulted in a largely invisible performance. Failed to leverage his athleticism in transition or on the glass, leading to empty minutes. The overall passivity allowed opponents to ignore him and load up on primary options.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 12.3m -7.0
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Failed to make a dent in the game during a brief rotational stint. Could not find open space on the perimeter, rendering him a non-factor in half-court sets. The lack of shot attempts or defensive playmaking resulted in a net-negative presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 8.3m -4.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Entered the game solely for the final possessions. Did not have enough time to influence the offensive or defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Logged garbage time minutes without registering any meaningful events. Simply occupied space on the floor as the clock wound down.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0