GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
35
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.7

An absolute offensive clinic was perfectly complemented by highly engaged weak-side defense (+7.2 Def). He consistently punished defensive miscommunications with lethal shot-making, breaking the opponent's spirit during a pivotal third-quarter run. His ability to blend elite scoring gravity with timely defensive rotations resulted in a massive overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 14/23 (60.9%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +43.9
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 33.4m -19.1
Impact +18.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 29.7m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Severe defensive misreads and poor positioning led to a disastrous net impact. He was repeatedly caught in no-man's land during pick-and-roll coverages, surrendering a parade of uncontested layups. Any marginal offensive contributions were entirely erased by his inability to anchor the interior against downhill drivers.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 29.7m -17.0
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 29.2m
14
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+15.0

Dominated the interior through sheer physical imposition and elite rim protection (+10.8 Def). He functioned as a flawless defensive anchor, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass to ignite transition opportunities. His flawless execution as a roll man and defensive deterrent drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +10.8
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 29.2m -16.7
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Terance Mann 26.0m
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a steady offensive spark, but his impact was muted by a lack of defensive resistance (+0.7 Def). He found success attacking closeouts, yet repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, giving up easy baskets. The balanced trade-off between his scoring efficiency and defensive lapses resulted in a neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +42.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 26.0m -14.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Egor Dëmin 25.1m
8
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.5

Sloppy ball security and erratic decision-making tanked his overall effectiveness. Despite generating extra possessions through sheer effort (+5.1 Hustle), he squandered those opportunities with forced passes into traffic. His inability to manage the game's tempo ultimately hurt the team's offensive rhythm during key transitional sequences.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 25.1m -14.4
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Drake Powell 20.6m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

Completely overwhelmed by the game's physicality, leading to a disastrous stint on the floor. He was a non-factor defensively (+0.2 Def) and actively harmed the offense by passing up open looks and stalling ball movement. His inability to execute basic system reads resulted in a massive negative swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 20.6m -11.8
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Saraf 20.2m
7
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

A lack of physical engagement and poor shot selection resulted in a heavily negative outing. He settled for contested, low-percentage jumpers early in the clock, bailing out the opposing defense. Without generating any meaningful hustle plays (+0.4), his offensive struggles compounded into a significant drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 20.2m -11.6
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 18.8m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Solid rotational defense (+5.6 Def) was completely undone by an inability to convert high-percentage looks. He successfully walled off the paint, but his offensive clumsiness stalled out multiple possessions. The stark contrast between his defensive reliability and offensive struggles defined his negative stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.6
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 18.8m -10.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Imposed his will on the interior with ruthless efficiency and physical screen-setting. He carved out deep post position effortlessly, punishing mismatches while providing sturdy drop coverage (+4.2 Def) on the other end. His ability to dominate the painted area in a short burst swung the game significantly in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 18.8m -10.7
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Leveraged his length to create havoc on the perimeter, driving a strong positive impact in limited minutes. His aggressive closeouts and passing lane disruption (+5.1 Def) fueled a crucial second-quarter momentum shift. Smart shot selection and timely hustle plays perfectly complemented his defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 14.6m -8.4
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

A disastrously brief appearance was defined by immediate defensive breakdowns (-1.5 Def). He was targeted on consecutive possessions upon entering the game, bleeding points rapidly. The coaching staff was forced to pull him almost instantly due to his inability to execute the defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 34.9m
23
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.0

High-level two-way execution fueled a dominant positive impact. Aggressive off-ball movement and elite defensive rotations (+6.4 Def) created easy transition opportunities while stifling the opponent's perimeter attack. The combination of efficient shot selection and relentless hustle (+6.0) firmly established him as the engine of the offense during a pivotal third-quarter surge.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 34.9m -20.0
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Saddiq Bey 33.3m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Despite a strong raw offensive output, his overall influence was neutralized by defensive lapses and empty possessions. He struggled to contain dribble penetration on the wing, giving back much of his production on the other end. A lack of high-leverage hustle plays prevented him from turning a solid shooting night into a truly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 33.3m -19.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jeremiah Fears 33.1m
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.9

A brutal shooting slump torpedoed his overall impact despite commendable effort on the margins. He forced contested looks early in the shot clock, leading to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks that crushed the team's momentum. While his defensive intensity (+4.0 Def) never wavered, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged the lineup down.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 33.1m -19.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 25.8m
6
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

Exceptional interior defense (+8.9 Def) was completely overshadowed by an inability to finish around the rim. He consistently disrupted actions in the paint, but empty offensive trips and poor touch on putbacks drained his overall value. The stark contrast between his rim protection and his struggles finishing through contact defined a frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.9
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 25.8m -14.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Bryce McGowens 24.4m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Capitalized on secondary offensive actions to generate a steady positive impact. His willingness to make the extra effort on loose balls (+4.6 Hustle) kept possessions alive during crucial stretches of the second half. Efficient scoring within the flow of the offense masked some minor defensive shortcomings against quicker guards.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 24.4m -14.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.1

Relentless point-of-attack pressure (+8.6 Def) and elite hustle (+7.0) were offset by an inability to orchestrate the offense effectively. He generated absolute chaos defensively, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs, but gave the momentum right back with erratic decision-making in transition. The defensive masterclass was ultimately neutralized by offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +7.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 30.0m -17.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
Yves Missi 17.6m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Faded into the background during his minutes on the floor, failing to leave a tangible mark on either end. A lack of physical presence in the paint allowed opponents to dictate the terms of engagement inside without resistance. Without generating secondary scoring opportunities or altering shots defensively, his stint was largely a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 17.6m -10.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 16.2m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Offensive ineptitude completely derailed his stint on the floor. He bricked multiple wide-open looks and stalled offensive sets, allowing the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter and pack the paint. Even a respectable defensive effort (+3.0 Def) couldn't salvage a performance defined by empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 16.2m -9.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

A complete absence of hustle plays (+0.0) and defensive resistance severely undermined his perimeter spacing. He was routinely targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points faster than he could generate them on the other end. Relying solely on spot-up opportunities left him disconnected from the broader flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 14.1m -8.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Struggled to adjust to the speed of the game, resulting in a steep negative impact during a brief appearance. Late defensive rotations and a failure to secure defensive rebounding position gave the opposition crucial second-chance opportunities. His inability to anchor the second unit's defense made him a liability in his limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 10.6m -6.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1