GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 34.8m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Excellent hustle metrics and solid point-of-attack defense were ultimately undone by poor offensive spacing. His reluctance to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint, stalling out several key possessions. The lack of perimeter gravity dragged his net impact into the red despite a high-energy performance.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 34.8m -18.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 33.7m
7
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.0

A brutal shooting slump from both the paint and the perimeter tanked his overall value. He forced uncharacteristic outside looks instead of playing to his strengths inside, bailing out the opposing interior defense. While his rim protection remained solid, the wasted offensive possessions were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 33.7m -17.7
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Relentless hustle and elite defensive activity salvaged an otherwise erratic shooting night. He struggled to find his rhythm from the perimeter, but his willingness to dive for loose balls and disrupt passing lanes kept his impact in the green. The defensive motor completely masked his offensive growing pains.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 33.2m -17.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

High-volume shooting and relentless off-ball movement kept the offense afloat, even if the efficiency wavered. He generated crucial extra possessions through sheer hustle, constantly pressuring the defense in transition. His willingness to take tough shots at the end of the clock defined a gritty, positive shift.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +6.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 30.6m -16.0
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mouhamed Gueye 22.6m
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Total offensive invisibility and a failure to threaten the rim resulted in a catastrophic net rating. Defenders completely ignored him in the half-court, which severely compromised the team's spacing and bogged down offensive sets. Despite decent effort on the glass, his inability to score made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 22.6m -11.9
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

A barrage of missed perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive footprint and allowed opponents to leak out in transition. He settled for contested outside looks rather than attacking closeouts, killing the team's half-court momentum. Strong defensive positioning wasn't nearly enough to offset the offensive damage.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -50.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 21.2m -11.2
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Luke Kennard 20.8m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Lethal perimeter spacing and flawless shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive stint. He punished defensive rotations by instantly firing off the catch, bending the opposing scheme every time he touched the ball. This sniper-like precision maximized his value in a specialized role.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 20.8m -11.0
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

Inefficient finishing inside the arc negated the value of his perimeter shot-making. He struggled to convert in traffic, leading to empty trips that fueled opponent fast breaks. Despite an uptick in scoring volume, the poor shot quality near the rim resulted in a negative overall grade.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 19.1m -10.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 18.7m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Opportunistic scoring and excellent floor spacing highlighted a breakout offensive performance. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with confident perimeter strokes and decisive cuts to the basket. This highly efficient, mistake-free shift provided a massive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 18.7m -9.9
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A lack of defensive engagement and zero hustle contributions marred a very brief appearance. While he knocked down a perimeter look, he was a step slow on defensive rotations, yielding easy driving lanes. The inability to impact the game beyond a single spot-up shot drove his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 5.3m -2.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 36.7m
27
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+10.8

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and a heavy dose of step-back daggers fueled a massive offensive rating. He dictated the tempo entirely, blending aggressive scoring bursts with elite defensive positioning that disrupted passing lanes. The sheer volume of high-leverage shot creation made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.1
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 36.7m -19.4
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 35.4m
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.4

A high volume of clanked perimeter jumpers severely suppressed his overall value despite strong defensive metrics. He settled for tough isolation looks rather than attacking the rim, dragging down his normally elite efficiency. The defensive rotations remained sharp, keeping his net impact barely above water.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 35.4m -18.8
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ivica Zubac 33.0m
14
pts
17
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite shot selection and finishing around the basket maximized his offensive footprint. He commanded the painted area, using his size to secure crucial contested boards and alter shots defensively. This was a masterclass in playing within a defined role to generate highly efficient, low-mistake production.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 33.0m -17.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S John Collins 32.2m
15
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Dominant interior defense and rim protection drove a highly positive overall rating. While his outside shot wasn't falling, he generated extra possessions through consistent hustle on the glass. His ability to anchor the paint defensively defined this highly impactful two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 32.2m -17.0
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 20.5m
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Aggressive point-of-attack defense and timely hustle plays set the tone during his minutes. He capitalized on rare offensive opportunities with decisive drives, punishing defensive lapses far more effectively than his recent track record suggested. His disruptive perimeter pressure was the primary catalyst for his strong positive grade.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 20.5m -10.8
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 27.1m
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Flawless shot selection and opportunistic perimeter spacing resulted in a staggering offensive surge. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown, converting catch-and-shoot looks with ruthless efficiency. This breakout performance was driven entirely by his ability to punish closeouts without forcing the action.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 27.1m -14.3
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Defensive lapses and slow rotations on the perimeter cratered his overall impact despite decent shooting efficiency. Opponents repeatedly targeted him in space, exposing a lack of lateral quickness that negated his spot-up contributions. The inability to string together stops defined a surprisingly negative shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 19.9m -10.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Christie 17.0m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Empty offensive possessions and a failure to generate meaningful rim pressure dragged down his rating. While he held up adequately on the defensive end, his inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. The lack of dynamic playmaking ultimately yielded a negative bottom line.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 17.0m -9.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 12.8m
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

A stark lack of offensive involvement limited his footprint after a string of highly productive outings. He deferred too often on the perimeter, though solid positional defense kept him from becoming a liability. Ultimately, his passive approach to finding his own shot resulted in a neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 12.8m -6.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Brief but highly disruptive defensive activity around the rim generated an outsized positive impact for such a short stint. He effectively walled off the paint during his limited run, deterring drivers and altering the geometry of the floor. This was a pure defensive cameo that stabilized the interior.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 2.6m -1.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Invisible on both ends of the floor during his brief appearance, failing to register any meaningful hustle or defensive metrics. He was caught out of position on a couple of quick defensive sequences, leading to a slight negative grade. The stint was too short to establish rhythm, but the lack of energy was notable.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 2.6m -1.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0