GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
13
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.2

An icy shooting night from deep overshadowed an otherwise stellar defensive and hustle performance. Settling for far too many contested above-the-break threes instead of attacking closeouts drained his offensive value. The defensive versatility was apparent, but the wasted offensive possessions kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +8.4
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 36.6m -23.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 36.3m
20
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.9

A heavy diet of contested mid-range isolation plays and a complete blank from beyond the arc severely suppressed his overall value. The sheer volume of missed perimeter shots stalled out the half-court offense during crucial third-quarter stretches. Despite finding some rhythm inside the arc, the inefficient shot profile ultimately hurt the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 36.3m -22.8
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 36.1m
23
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.8

Dictating the physical terms of the matchup, his elite defensive anticipation and bullying drives to the rim created a dominant two-way clinic. He constantly generated high-quality looks while blowing up opposing pick-and-rolls on the other end. His ability to seamlessly toggle between primary playmaker and defensive anchor drove a massive positive margin.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +8.5
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 36.1m -22.7
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
13
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.7

While the shooting splits look clean, his impact was torpedoed by poor ball security and mistimed defensive gambles. Failing to organize the half-court offense led to disjointed possessions and stalled momentum during his shifts. The underlying metrics suggest his playmaking decisions and turnovers cost the team more than his scoring provided.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 32.0m -20.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ja'Kobe Walter 24.8m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Confident decision-making and a quick trigger against defensive rotations fueled a highly efficient scoring punch. He consistently punished defenders for going under screens, capitalizing on the space provided to knock down rhythm looks. This breakout performance was defined by smart shot selection and solid positional awareness.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 24.8m -15.5
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 21.4m
4
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.1

Extreme passivity on the offensive end allowed defenders to completely sag off and clog the passing lanes. Refusing to look at the rim made the offense essentially play four-on-five in the half-court, despite generating some decent looks for others. The defensive hustle was commendable, but the lack of scoring gravity was too detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 21.4m -13.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 16.2m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Despite finding his stroke from the perimeter, a glaring inability to stay in front of his man on defense completely negated his offensive contributions. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness on the perimeter. The defensive bleeding far outweighed the benefits of his floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 16.2m -10.2
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Excellent spatial awareness and timely baseline cuts resulted in a highly efficient, low-usage performance. Capitalizing on the defensive attention drawn by the stars, he converted easy looks around the basket when his defender stunted away. A textbook example of a role player maximizing limited touches without making mistakes.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 15.8m -9.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Surgical execution in the pick-and-pop game allowed him to continue his streak of hyper-efficient scoring. Taking exactly what the defense conceded, he never forced the issue while maintaining excellent floor spacing. A reliable, low-mistake outing that perfectly complemented the primary creators without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 15.7m -9.8
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Barely making a blip on the radar during a very brief stint, he failed to establish any physical presence inside. Struggling to get involved in the offensive flow resulted in an empty cardio session that lacked any defining plays. A neutral outing where he simply blended into the background of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.1m -3.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 40.8m
44
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+15.8

An absolute offensive masterclass defined by relentless downhill attacking and elite perimeter shot-making against drop coverage. His ability to generate high-value looks both for himself and others broke the opposing defensive scheme entirely. Massive hustle contributions further amplified a career-defining scoring explosion that carried the unit.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 13/15 (86.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.7%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +30.7
Hustle +9.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +41.4
Avg player in 40.8m -25.6
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S LeBron James 36.0m
8
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
-14.0

A brutal volume of clanked perimeter jumpers completely derailed his overall impact, erasing the value of his playmaking. The heavy reliance on contested outside looks prevented the offense from finding any rhythm during crucial stretches. His defensive metrics remained solid, but the sheer number of empty possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 23.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 36.0m -22.5
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Rui Hachimura 35.0m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Despite finding the bottom of the net efficiently, his overall value plummeted due to costly defensive lapses and likely a high volume of live-ball turnovers. He struggled to navigate screens during the second quarter, allowing the defense to generate easy transition opportunities. The positive hustle metrics simply couldn't salvage a performance marred by poor decision-making with the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 35.0m -21.9
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 31.6m
17
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.1

Continuing a dominant streak of interior finishing, his elite shot selection around the rim drove a highly positive offensive rating. He consistently sealed his man in the paint on early post-ups, converting high-percentage looks without forcing bad shots. Strong rim deterrence on the other end perfectly complemented his disciplined offensive approach.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 31.6m -19.8
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 36.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Gabe Vincent 24.3m
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.2

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc severely handicapped his minutes on the floor. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock led to empty possessions and transition opportunities going the other way. Even with decent hustle, his inability to stretch the floor effectively dragged down the second unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 24.3m -15.2
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jake LaRavia 28.2m
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Smart off-ball movement and decisive catch-and-shoot execution capitalized on defensive rotations perfectly. He never forced the issue, letting the game come to him while providing crucial floor spacing from the corners. Solid positional defense ensured his disciplined offensive profile translated to a net positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 28.2m -17.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Jaxson Hayes 16.4m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite rim protection and vertical spacing anchored his highly positive defensive impact during his stint. While his offensive volume dropped off significantly from recent games, his willingness to do the dirty work inside kept possessions alive. He excelled in his role as a lob threat and defensive deterrent against driving guards.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 16.4m -10.3
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.5

Operating as a massive spark plug off the bench, his aggressive point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's backup guards. He paired this defensive intensity with confident, in-rhythm perimeter shooting during a pivotal second-quarter run. Maximizing every second of his limited run, his two-way energy shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 14.3m -9.0
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Adou Thiero 10.1m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Capitalizing on brief rotational minutes, he stayed strictly within his lane to provide a slight positive bump. A perfectly timed cut to the basket highlighted a mistake-free stint where he avoided forcing the issue. He provided exactly the kind of low-usage stability a coach wants at the end of the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 10.1m -6.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Providing instant offense in a microscopic window, he drilled a crucial perimeter look the moment he stepped on the floor. There simply wasn't enough time to accumulate defensive stats, but his immediate spacing gravity was felt by the opposing scheme. A flawless, albeit incredibly brief, execution of his specialized shooting role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 3.3m -2.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0