GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Noah Clowney 34.2m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

An unexpected explosion of offensive assertiveness completely altered the geometry of the defense. He paired this aggressive interior finishing with stellar rim protection, consistently deterring drivers and altering floaters in the paint. This two-way dominance dictated the terms of engagement and fueled a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 34.2m -17.9
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 29.4m
12
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.7

Anchored the interior with disciplined drop coverage that routinely forced opponents into low-percentage midrange pull-ups. His mobility on the perimeter allowed the defense to switch seamlessly without conceding mismatches. Efficient rim-running and timely screens further amplified his steady, positive influence on the game flow.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -33.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 29.4m -15.4
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tyrese Martin 22.3m
0
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.9

A disastrous shooting performance completely derailed the offense, as he repeatedly bricked open looks and stalled possessions. Opponents aggressively sagged off him, effectively clogging the driving lanes for his teammates and ruining the half-court spacing. Despite decent effort on the glass, his offensive black-hole status resulted in a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -7.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total -4.2
Avg player in 22.3m -11.7
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Egor Dëmin 20.4m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

Defensive lapses defined his stint, as he repeatedly lost his man navigating through baseline screens. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, forcing the interior defense into rotation and conceding high-value corner threes. A lack of offensive creation could not mask how much he gave back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 20.4m -10.7
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Terance Mann 18.1m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Offensive invisibility and a failure to challenge shooters at the point of attack resulted in a noticeable negative slide. He was frequently caught ball-watching on the weak side, surrendering back-door cuts that yielded easy layups. Without his typical energy plays to compensate, his floor time actively hurt the team's defensive structure.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -42.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 18.1m -9.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 28.0m
17
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Provided a strong scoring punch but gave almost all of it back through sluggish pick-and-roll coverage. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his heavy feet in space, easily turning the corner for layups or dump-off passes. The raw production was evident, but his structural defensive flaws flattened out his overall contribution.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 28.0m -14.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

High-volume perimeter chucking yielded mixed results, but his willingness to attack closeouts kept the defense scrambling. He offset some inefficient stretches by utilizing his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate deflections. Ultimately, his aggressive scoring mentality provided just enough pressure to keep his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 27.9m -14.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Ben Saraf 23.9m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Completely locked down his primary assignments, navigating screens with relentless physicality to blow up offensive sets. While his offensive involvement was minimal, his elite point-of-attack harassment completely disrupted the opponent's timing. This defensive masterclass ensured his minutes were a net positive despite a quiet night scoring the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 23.9m -12.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Dominated the physical battles in the paint, utilizing his wide frame to seal off driving lanes and alter interior attempts. He generated critical extra possessions through sheer force on the offensive glass, punishing smaller rotations. This bruising, high-energy style of play translated into a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 18.6m -9.7
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 15.6m
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

An inability to create separation off the dribble severely limited his offensive utility, resulting in several dead-end possessions. He compounded these struggles by committing undisciplined reach-in fouls that bailed out stalled opponent possessions. Even with decent positional defense, his offensive stagnation dragged down the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 15.6m -8.2
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Saw only brief garbage-time action, offering virtually no data points to evaluate. He was caught out of position on one defensive sequence but otherwise just ran out the clock. The sample size was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding his impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 1.5m -0.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 34.5m
30
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.2

Decisive shot creation consistently bent the opposing defense and drove an elite offensive rating. His ability to draw multiple defenders opened up high-value passing lanes, while active closeouts on the perimeter fueled a strong defensive metric. This two-way assertiveness anchored the unit's success whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +25.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 34.5m -18.1
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Keyonte George 31.4m
29
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+12.7

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense drove a massive positive rating. He constantly manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to create high-quality looks, while also committing to aggressive point-of-attack defense. His relentless ball pressure and active hands in passing lanes ensured his impact extended far beyond just scoring.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 31.4m -16.5
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 31.1m
15
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.2

Scoring volume dipped from his recent tear, but he supplemented his value with elite defensive anchoring and relentless rim-running. He generated massive value through high-motor hustle plays and altering shots in the paint. This shift from primary scorer to connective defensive hub proved highly effective for the team's overall margin.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 31.1m -16.3
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 25.2m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite highly efficient perimeter execution, his overall impact slipped into the red due to minimal physical engagement on the margins. He failed to generate any meaningful hustle events, allowing opponents to dictate the tempo during his shifts. A stark lack of off-ball disruption ultimately negated his clean shooting stroke.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +48.1
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 25.2m -13.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 25.1m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

A severe drop in offensive aggression cratered his overall value, as he settled for contested looks rather than attacking the paint. His defensive rotations were consistently a half-step slow, leading to easy blow-bys and open corner attempts. Without his usual scoring gravity, his lack of secondary hustle stats left him as a severe net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 25.1m -13.2
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided steady, low-mistake minutes that kept the second unit afloat during crucial transition periods. His willingness to make the extra pass and fight through off-ball screens generated a modest but positive overall margin. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead relying on sound positional defense to add value.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 24.0m -12.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Poor shot selection heavily dragged down his rating, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. While he showed flashes of physical defense, his offensive tunnel vision disrupted the team's spacing and rhythm. The resulting empty possessions frequently ignited opponent transition attacks.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 21.8m -11.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.3

Completely hijacked the game defensively with brilliant positional awareness and elite disruption in the passing lanes. He generated massive value by blowing up dribble hand-offs and securing long rebounds to ignite the break. This masterclass in connective, high-IQ basketball drove an overwhelmingly positive margin despite low usage.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.4
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 16.9m -8.9
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.6

Struggled to find a rhythm during his brief stint, frequently stalling the offensive flow with hesitant decision-making. He gave up too much ground on defensive switches, allowing opposing guards to easily access the painted area. A failure to pressure the rim or create advantages off the bounce ultimately tanked his lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -54.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 14.7m -7.7
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Completely vanished during his brief rotation, failing to register any meaningful offensive or defensive events. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, yielding deep post position without putting up physical resistance. This passive approach resulted in a steep negative rating as the opposing bench unit capitalized on his lack of engagement.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 8.2m -4.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Limited minutes prevented him from establishing any sort of rhythm, though he still managed to be a step late on weakside rotations. His inability to secure contested loose balls allowed second-chance opportunities that quickly bled points. He essentially floated on the perimeter without applying any meaningful pressure on either end.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -67.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 7.0m -3.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0