GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Harrison Barnes 35.8m
31
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.5

An absolute masterclass in perimeter shot-making fueled a massive surge in his baseline metrics. Punishing defensive lapses with lethal precision from deep, he single-handedly carried the offense during crucial stretches. Combined with excellent positional awareness on the other end, this veteran performance was an analytical goldmine.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 35.8m -20.2
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.8

Ice-cold perimeter shooting severely punished his overall impact despite logging heavy minutes. While he competed hard defensively and generated solid hustle metrics, the offensive end was plagued by missed spot-up opportunities. Clanking multiple wide-open looks from the corners allowed the defense to completely ignore his gravity.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 35.0m -19.6
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 31.1m
29
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.2

Relentless downhill pressure and timely perimeter shooting created a highly destructive offensive profile. Dictating the pace of the game, he leveraged his elite speed to force defensive rotations and generate high-value looks. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted an already impressive two-way impact score.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.7
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 31.1m -17.5
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luke Kornet 27.9m
4
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.0

Offensive usage plummeted, yet he dominated the game entirely through elite rim deterrence and constant hustle. His ability to alter shots in the paint without fouling generated a massive defensive rating that carried his overall profile. Acting as a pure connective piece, he proved that elite positioning can heavily swing a game's impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +6.6
Defense +10.6
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 27.9m -15.7
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 0
S Devin Vassell 27.9m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Inefficient isolation attempts bogged down his offensive rhythm and dragged his net score into the red. Consistently settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups prevented him from pressuring the rim or collapsing the defense. A lack of disruptive defensive playmaking meant he couldn't claw back the value lost to those empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 27.9m -15.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.6

Despite highly efficient shooting, his overall impact suffered heavily due to poor defensive positioning and missed rotations. Opponents frequently targeted him in space, bleeding points that quickly negated his solid offensive contributions. The inability to string together stops on the perimeter completely undermined his baseline value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 27.9m -15.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 20.6m
15
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.1

Steady, efficient shot creation kept his offensive metrics firmly in the positive during his rotation minutes. Operating with great patience in the half-court, he picked his spots carefully to maintain his recent streak of high-percentage shooting. However, a lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack prevented his total impact from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 20.6m -11.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.9

Elite shot selection and physical finishing at the rim drove a massive spike in his per-minute impact. Bullying smaller matchups in the paint, he completely refused to settle for low-percentage perimeter looks. Combined with highly disruptive defensive activity, he proved to be an absolute analytics darling in this contest.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 18.4m -10.2
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Making the most of limited minutes, he spaced the floor effectively and confidently knocked down open perimeter looks. His active movement off the ball generated positive hustle metrics and kept the offensive sets flowing smoothly. This was a highly efficient, mistake-free shift that provided a measurable spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.0
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 11.2m -6.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely seeing the floor resulted in a mostly flat statistical profile for the veteran big man. A quick missed jumper slightly dinged his baseline metrics, but the sample size was far too small to draw meaningful conclusions. He functioned merely as brief rotational filler between quarters.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Logging pure garbage time minutes left him with virtually no opportunity to impact the game's outcome. A single defensive lapse in transition accounted for the slight negative dip in his otherwise blank statistical profile.

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 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Zach Edey 29.7m
19
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.1

Physical interior dominance and elite positioning generated massive value across all impact categories. His ability to seal defenders deep in the paint created a steady diet of high-percentage looks. Furthermore, he anchored the drop coverage beautifully, translating sheer size into tangible rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 29.7m -16.6
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 28.8m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.9

Forcing the issue from the perimeter severely damaged his offensive rating and overall impact. He consistently settled for early-clock jumpers, generating long rebounds that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Even with active hands in the passing lanes, the wasted offensive possessions proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.5%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 28.8m -16.2
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylen Wells 28.3m
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Highly efficient perimeter shot-making drove a massive spike in his offensive metrics. Despite the scoring explosion, his overall impact settled near neutral due to poor point-of-attack resistance on the wing. The offensive surge successfully masked a quiet defensive shift.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 28.3m -15.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.2

Defensive versatility was the calling card here, as he consistently blew up dribble hand-offs at the point of attack. Taking on secondary playmaking duties elevated his baseline impact, though a few forced drives capped his ceiling. Navigating screens with physicality kept his defensive metrics firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.4
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 26.7m -15.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.4

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers completely derailed his offensive value. While his rim protection and activity level remained a positive force, the sheer volume of empty possessions tanked his overall impact. A brutal shooting night from deep neutralized his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -7.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 26.6m -14.9
Impact -16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
Santi Aldama 24.4m
4
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.4

A highly passive offensive approach and inability to finish through contact cratered his overall score. Functioning mostly as a perimeter ball-mover, his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. Struggling to contain quicker forwards in space only compounded his offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 24.4m -13.6
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Spencer 21.9m
21
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.9

Phenomenal shot selection and the ability to capitalize on defensive breakdowns drove a massive spike in his offensive value. Operating flawlessly off the catch, he punished late rotations with decisive perimeter strikes. This offensive clinic easily outweighed a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +22.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 21.9m -12.3
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 17.9m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Perfect offensive execution on low-usage opportunities maximized his value in a connective role. Thriving by cutting baseline and spotting up in rhythm, he completely avoided negative plays that typically drain impact scores. This flawless efficiency paired with timely hustle plays to produce a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 119.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 17.9m -10.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 15.3m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Capitalizing on pick-and-roll gravity allowed him to generate highly efficient looks around the basket. His hard dives to the rim consistently collapsed the defense, resulting in a strong positive impact during his limited rotation minutes. He also maintained verticality well enough to survive defensive switches against quicker second units.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 15.3m -8.5
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.7

Failing to establish any shooting rhythm during a brief stint severely dragged down his baseline metrics. While his standard point-of-attack defense remained steady, it simply could not offset the dead-end offensive possessions. Rushing his mechanics against hard closeouts resulted in an unusually negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -8.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total -6.3
Avg player in 13.1m -7.4
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

A stark regression from his recent hot streak occurred as forced drives into traffic derailed his brief appearance. Unable to find the soft spots against the opposing frontcourt, his offensive rhythm completely stalled out. He brought decent energy to the floor but failed to string together meaningful positive sequences.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 7.5m -4.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0