GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
35
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.9

A lethal barrage of perimeter shot-making completely overwhelmed the defense and drove a massive positive rating. He consistently shot right over closeouts, exploiting his size advantage on the wing to generate high-quality looks from deep. The sheer volume of his scoring gravity warped the opponent's defensive scheme and opened up the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 36.0m -18.7
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 33.5m
13
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.1

Elite defensive anchoring and exceptional passing from the high post defined a dominant two-way performance. He controlled the paint with his length, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass to limit second-chance opportunities. Acting as a hub on offense, his playmaking out of the short roll perfectly punished aggressive pick-and-roll coverages.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.0
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 33.5m -17.4
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 30.1m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Highly efficient finishing and timely cuts to the basket resulted in a breakout offensive performance that shattered his recent slump. He took exactly what the defense gave him rather than forcing the issue, feasting on dump-offs and offensive rebounds. His vertical spacing and activity level in the dunker spot created constant headaches for the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.6%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 30.1m -15.6
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Egor Dëmin 26.7m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

A heavy volume of missed shots severely limited his overall effectiveness and dragged his impact score into the red. He struggled to find a rhythm against physical perimeter defense, frequently settling for contested jumpers late in the shot clock. While he kept the ball moving, the lack of scoring efficiency turned his minutes into a slight negative.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 26.7m -14.0
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Tyrese Martin 18.5m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Clunky offensive execution and missed perimeter looks dragged down an otherwise energetic stint. He competed hard on the defensive end, but his inability to convert open shots stalled the half-court offense and broke the team's rhythm. The opponent comfortably sagged off him, effectively clogging the driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 18.5m -9.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 23.9m
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Disruptive point-of-attack defense and opportunistic scoring drove a highly effective two-way shift. He hounded ball-handlers to blow up offensive sets while converting efficiently when his number was called. This disciplined, low-mistake approach perfectly complemented the primary creators and swung the momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 23.9m -12.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 19.3m
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Solid positional rebounding and capable floor-spacing provided a steadying presence for the second unit. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns to knock down timely shots, continuing a stretch of reliable offensive play. His ability to pull opposing bigs away from the basket opened up crucial driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 19.3m -10.1
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

A lack of offensive aggression and poor finishing resulted in a noticeable drop-off from his recent production. He struggled to make an imprint on the game, often floating on the perimeter rather than aggressively attacking closeouts. Despite decent hustle metrics, his failure to generate rim pressure made him a non-factor offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 19.0m -9.9
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ben Saraf 18.4m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Ice-cold perimeter shooting completely cratered his offensive impact and allowed the defense to pack the paint. He repeatedly misfired on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, continuing a recent trend of poor efficiency. This inability to space the floor proved to be a glaring liability that stalled out multiple offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 18.4m -9.5
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.4

Defensive struggles in the pick-and-roll and a lack of rim protection led to a highly negative rating. Opponents consistently targeted his drop coverage, generating easy floaters and pull-up jumpers without much resistance. His inability to secure the defensive glass further compounded the bleeding during his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 14.5m -7.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 35.1m
18
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.9

Shot selection heavily dragged down his overall impact, as clanking a high volume of attempts negated a highly disruptive defensive showing. The sheer number of empty possessions overshadowed his floor-spacing threat and fueled opponent transition opportunities. He needs to find better spots on the floor rather than forcing contested looks against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 35.1m -18.2
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 30.4m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.0

A brutal shooting night completely tanked his value, with a barrage of missed field goals creating constant fast-break opportunities for the opponent. His inability to finish at the rim or connect from deep stalled out the half-court offense and broke the team's rhythm. Despite active hands on the defensive end, the massive volume of wasted possessions was simply too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 26.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 30.4m -15.8
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 29.5m
12
pts
5
reb
14
ast
Impact
-1.3

Elite playmaking generated massive value through precise pick-and-roll reads, but a high volume of empty possessions kept his net impact slightly negative. He controlled the tempo beautifully to spoon-feed teammates, yet settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint capped his overall ceiling. The sheer number of wasted offensive trips ultimately offset his masterful facilitation.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 29.5m -15.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Sion James 28.4m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.0

Offensive passivity and bricked perimeter looks severely limited his effectiveness, allowing the defense to completely sag off him. While he brought solid energy and point-of-attack resistance, his inability to punish closeouts clogged the driving lanes for everyone else. The lack of scoring gravity turned his minutes into an uphill battle for the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 28.4m -14.9
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.1

Flawless execution around the basket and elite rim protection drove a massive positive rating. He dominated his minutes by refusing to force bad shots and anchoring the paint with disciplined verticality. His sheer presence completely altered the geometry of the frontcourt matchup, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +11.5
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 25.6m -13.4
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Relentless activity on the glass and high-level interior defense fueled a highly productive shift. He thrived as a rim-runner, consistently beating his man down the floor to generate easy looks and maintain a hot shooting streak. His physical presence in the paint completely disrupted the opponent's finishing at the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 22.4m -11.7
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Efficient scoring bursts and steady defensive pressure resulted in a highly productive stint that stabilized the second unit. He attacked the rim with purpose, putting constant pressure on the interior defense without hijacking the offensive flow. Continuing a trend of highly efficient shooting, he provided exactly the kind of secondary punch the rotation needed.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 18.8m -9.9
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

A relatively quiet but balanced performance resulted in a near-neutral impact score. He stayed within the flow of the offense and competed hard on defense, though he lacked a signature moment to swing the momentum. This conservative approach limited mistakes but also capped his ability to drive winning plays.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +42.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 17.6m -9.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of his man resulted in a slightly negative outing despite decent offensive efficiency. Opponents successfully targeted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his spot-up shooting. He capitalized on his limited touches, but gave the points right back on the other end through poor containment.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 17.1m -8.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Blistering perimeter efficiency in limited minutes provided a massive spark off the bench and erased the memory of a recent scoreless outing. He punished defensive rotations by knocking down open catch-and-shoot looks with supreme confidence. This quick-strike scoring ability maximized his offensive footprint despite a relatively quiet defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 15.1m -7.8
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0