GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 35.7m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

Exceptional shot selection and timely cuts to the basket powered a massive box score impact. He punished defensive rotations with clinical efficiency, elevating his baseline performance. Active perimeter defense further cemented a stellar two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 35.7m -20.4
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ryan Nembhard 33.9m
15
pts
5
reb
13
ast
Impact
+2.9

Elite floor generalship and a shocking perimeter outburst drove a highly effective shift. He manipulated the pick-and-roll masterfully, breaking down the defense to create high-value looks for teammates. This massive leap in offensive confidence totally transformed the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 33.9m -19.3
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Max Christie 32.4m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Hidden defensive breakdowns and poor rotational timing torpedoed his overall metric despite decent shooting splits. While he hit his open looks, he was consistently targeted on the other end of the floor. The negative impact stems entirely from giving up more value in coverage than he produced spotting up.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 32.4m -18.5
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cooper Flagg 31.1m
22
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Surgical interior finishing drove a highly efficient, positive outing despite a slight dip in his recent scoring volume. Bypassing the three-point line entirely, he relentlessly attacked the paint and generated high-quality looks. Consistent defensive pressure ensured his offensive efficiency translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 31.1m -17.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Anthony Davis 28.2m
17
pts
17
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.2

An absolute masterclass in rim protection completely overshadowed a pedestrian shooting night. He controlled the glass and altered countless shots in the paint, single-handedly stalling the opponent's interior attack. The sheer defensive gravity he provided made up for the clunky offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +16.8
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 28.2m -16.1
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Forcing too many contested looks inside the arc negated the value of his perimeter spacing. Although he found his stroke from deep, the sheer volume of wasted possessions on mid-range clanks dragged him into the red. His shot selection ultimately capped the ceiling of an otherwise bouncy offensive night.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 26.3m -14.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Opportunistic shot-making in limited minutes provided a steady, positive lift. He didn't force the issue, taking what the defense gave him and keeping the ball moving. Minimal defensive mistakes allowed his efficient scoring to translate directly to a net positive.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 15.3m -8.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Complete offensive invisibility erased the value of his typically strong rim protection. Failing to establish deep post position or roll with intent left the offense playing 4-on-5. Despite active hustle metrics, the total lack of scoring threat nullified his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 14.1m -8.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

A complete lack of hustle plays and defensive resistance doomed his brief stint on the floor. He failed to generate any secondary stats, making him a one-dimensional player who wasn't scoring efficiently enough to justify his usage. The steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear left the second unit stalling.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 13.8m -7.8
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Operating purely as a cardio guy on offense resulted in a slightly negative overall rating. While he executed his defensive coverages adequately, he commanded zero gravity in the pick-and-roll. The total absence of field goal attempts allowed defenders to aggressively trap the ball-handler.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

A disastrously short stint was marred by blown defensive assignments and zero hustle generation. He looked out of sync with the rotation, bleeding value on the perimeter before being quickly pulled. The negative rating reflects a complete inability to impact the game positively in his brief window.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 3.5m -2.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 33.4m
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.0

Massive offensive inefficiency tanked an otherwise solid two-way effort. While he generated positive value through active defensive rotations, missing 14 shots destroyed his net impact. The sheer volume of empty possessions overshadowed his hustle.

Shooting
FG 4/18 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 33.4m -19.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tyler Herro 33.1m
20
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Marginal negative impact stemmed from a lack of playmaking and slightly forced perimeter looks. Surprisingly strong defensive metrics nearly offset the offensive friction caused by his failure to record a single assist. He operated too much in isolation, stalling the broader offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.1
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 33.1m -18.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 30.3m
4
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-10.6

Severe offensive passivity and poor shooting plummeted his net rating into the basement. Despite facilitating well, his complete lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. The steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear left a noticeable void in the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 30.3m -17.4
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bam Adebayo 28.4m
21
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Returning to form inside the arc salvaged his overall rating despite continued struggles from deep. Forcing several ill-advised three-point attempts suppressed what could have been a dominant metric, though his defensive anchoring kept the needle pointing positive. A steady diet of paint touches proved far more effective than his perimeter experimentation.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 28.4m -16.1
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 22.8m
4
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.5

A sharp regression from his recent hot streak dragged down his overall impact. Brick-laying from the perimeter completely neutralized his offensive gravity, leading to a stark negative rating. His inability to find a rhythm derailed Miami's spacing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 31.6%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 22.8m -13.0
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 25.2m
22
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.0

An absolute explosion in offensive efficiency fueled a dominant rating. Stretching the floor flawlessly from beyond the arc punished drop coverages and opened up the interior. This breakout performance showcased perfect shot selection and capitalized on every defensive lapse.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 25.2m -14.4
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.0

Elite defensive disruption and relentless hustle completely masked a rough shooting night. He generated massive value without needing the ball to go through the hoop, anchoring the perimeter defense to a dominant rating. Gritty 50/50 ball recoveries and timely rotations defined his highly positive stint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +9.9
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 21.9m -12.5
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Settling almost exclusively for contested triples severely limited his offensive efficiency. Even though he found the basket more than usual lately, the sheer number of wasted perimeter heaves dragged his overall metric into the red. Solid defensive positioning couldn't rescue a shot chart dominated by low-percentage looks.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 21.1m -11.9
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Dru Smith 17.7m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.5

A massive surge in offensive confidence drove a highly efficient two-way showing. He capitalized on limited touches with excellent shot selection, completely reversing his recent slump. Active hands in the passing lanes and crisp ball movement cemented his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 17.7m -10.0
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A brief, invisible stint yielded negative value due to empty offensive possessions. Failing to generate any secondary stats beyond a pair of boards made him a net liability on the floor. He simply floated on the perimeter without pressuring the defense.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -78.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 6.1m -3.4
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0