GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 37.3m
18
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.2

Exceptional defensive versatility (+5.9 Def) and high-IQ playmaking from the elbows anchored a robust +3.2 overall impact. He consistently collapsed the defense with physical drives before making the right read, elevating the entire unit's shot quality. His ability to switch onto smaller guards on the perimeter neutralized the opponent's primary pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.9
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 37.3m -21.5
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 35.2m
30
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Scoring volume completely masked the underlying damage caused by live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses, resulting in a deceptive -1.5 net impact. While he broke out of a recent slump by hunting midrange mismatches, he gave those points right back by getting lost on back-door cuts. The heavy offensive load he carried came at the steep cost of overall team flow and ball security.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 35.2m -20.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.7

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers derailed his offensive rhythm, as multiple empty trips from beyond the arc heavily penalized his net rating (-3.7). Although he provided solid point-of-attack hustle (+3.9), his inability to bend the defense off the dribble stagnated the half-court offense. Opponents consistently went under screens, daring him to shoot and neutralizing his playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 31.3m -18.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 24.8m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Relentless screen-setting and elite hustle metrics (+5.2) kept his impact firmly in the positive despite an uncharacteristic dip in finishing efficiency. He generated numerous second-chance opportunities by outworking his matchup on the offensive glass. Even when his touch around the rim faltered, his positional defense deterred multiple drives into the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 24.8m -14.3
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ja'Kobe Walter 11.9m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

A complete inability to generate offensive separation or defensive resistance resulted in a disastrous -9.8 impact score during his minutes. He looked entirely out of rhythm, forcing bad passes and missing rotations that led to wide-open corner threes. The game simply moved too fast for him during this disastrous rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -67.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 11.9m -6.9
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Excellent spatial awareness and timely rolls to the rim fueled a highly efficient offensive showing that anchored his +4.7 impact score. He consistently found the soft spots in the opponent's zone coverage, converting high-percentage looks in the paint. Solid positional defense (+4.6 Def) ensured he wasn't giving those points back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 23.3m -13.5
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 22.4m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+8.4) completely drove this highly effective performance, overcoming mediocre shooting efficiency. He was an absolute pest in the backcourt, generating deflections and diving for loose balls that swung momentum in crucial swing moments. This relentless energy translated directly into a stellar +4.4 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +8.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 22.4m -12.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ochai Agbaji 22.2m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.3

Capitalizing on hard baseline cuts and transition leaks, he shattered his recent scoring slump to post a dominant +6.3 net impact. His off-ball movement constantly punished defensive ball-watching, while his +5.2 hustle rating reflected multiple extra-effort plays on the glass. He perfectly executed his role as a high-energy finisher who didn't need plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 22.2m -12.9
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
A.J. Lawson 13.5m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Defensive breakdowns (-2.5 Def) and a complete lack of hustle plays entirely negated his scoring punch off the bench. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation sets, bleeding points at a rate that dragged his overall impact into the red (-2.3). The offensive burst was purely cosmetic given how much he surrendered on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +8.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.5
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 13.5m -7.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Total offensive passivity rendered him a liability on the floor, as he failed to attempt a single shot and allowed defenders to completely ignore him. Without his spacing gravity, the driving lanes evaporated for his teammates, dragging his overall impact down to -3.4. He struggled to stay in front of his man on the other end, compounding the negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 7.5m -4.4
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

A shocking disappearance from the offense snapped a highly efficient recent stretch, as he failed to even look at the rim during his brief stint. This lack of aggression allowed the defense to double-team elsewhere, stalling the unit's momentum and resulting in a -2.4 impact score. He was essentially a non-factor in a game where his interior presence was desperately needed.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 6.2m -3.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-intensity defensive pressure (+3.0 Def) during a micro-stint managed to keep his overall impact slightly positive (+0.7) despite offering nothing offensively. He locked down his assignment on the perimeter to disrupt the opponent's late-clock sets. His energy was disruptive enough to justify the brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 4.4m -2.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 38.9m
30
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.3

Elite two-way wing play drove a massive +11.3 overall impact, anchored by suffocating perimeter defense (+6.6 Def) that disrupted the opponent's primary actions. Continuing a dominant offensive stretch, his ability to hunt high-value mismatches created a massive mathematical advantage in the half-court. He completely controlled the tempo whenever he acted as the primary initiator.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.6
Raw total +33.7
Avg player in 38.9m -22.4
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
15
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.0

Despite generating excellent defensive metrics (+5.5 Def), hidden costs like defensive foul trouble and poor transition spacing ultimately dragged his net impact into the red (-1.0). His perimeter shot selection was slightly forced against tight closeouts, leading to empty possessions that fueled fast breaks for the opponent. He struggled to contain dribble penetration during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 37.9m -21.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 37.3m
27
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.2

A massive spike in offensive aggression yielded mixed results, as a high volume of missed perimeter attempts nearly canceled out his elite hustle metrics (+7.2). He snapped out of a recent scoring slump by hunting his own shot, but the sheer number of low-percentage pull-ups limited his overall net impact (+0.2). His relentless ball pressure at the point of attack remained a bright spot in an otherwise erratic stint.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 37.3m -21.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 5
S Neemias Queta 33.7m
11
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Relentless interior physicality dictated his strong +4.5 net rating, as he consistently won the battle for positioning in the paint. Maintaining his highly efficient finishing streak, his shot selection was strictly limited to high-percentage looks at the rim. Opponents struggled to navigate his rim protection (+5.5 Def) throughout the night, forcing them into contested floaters.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 33.7m -19.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jordan Walsh 26.0m
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Defensive activity (+5.1 Def) and timely hustle plays kept his overall impact in the green during his rotational minutes. A significant uptick in offensive aggression resulted in high-quality shot selection that repeatedly punished late defensive rotations. His length was a constant disruptive force in the passing lanes, sparking multiple transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 26.0m -14.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 26.2m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

One-dimensional shot selection entirely outside the arc made him highly predictable, allowing the defense to stay home and limit his overall effectiveness (-1.5 Total). While he provided solid weak-side defensive rotations (+4.8 Def), his inability to attack closeouts stalled the offensive flow. The lack of rim pressure ultimately outweighed his floor-spacing gravity.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 26.2m -15.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Poor shot quality and a complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) cratered his net impact to a team-worst -4.8. Forcing heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock resulted in nine empty trips that directly fed the opponent's transition game. He was frequently targeted on defensive switches, offering little resistance at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +6.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 20.6m -11.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Minott 10.8m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Passive offensive involvement caused a steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear, rendering him nearly invisible during his stint. Failing to assert himself in the half-court offense, his lack of spacing gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint and disrupt driving lanes. A few missed defensive assignments further dragged his overall impact into the negative (-1.9).

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 10.8m -6.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Brief rotational minutes were marred by offensive invisibility, causing a noticeable dip in lineup efficiency (-2.1 Total). He failed to register any meaningful pressure on the rim or the perimeter, allowing his primary defender to act as a free safety. Despite marginal hustle contributions, his inability to threaten the defense made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 6.3m -3.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Maximized a tiny rotational window by aggressively attacking the basket for a quick burst of highly efficient offense. This flawless micro-stint generated a massive +3.9 impact score relative to his time on the floor. His immediate readiness to exploit defensive gaps off the bench defined the brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0