GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Kyle Filipowski 36.2m
21
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.7

Dominant interior positioning and soft touch around the rim anchored a stellar two-way performance. He completely controlled the paint defensively, altering shots and ending possessions with high-level rebounding fundamentals. His consistency as a high-percentage finisher continues to be a stabilizing force for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 36.2m -18.8
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 68.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 33.4m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Extreme passivity on offense cratered his overall rating despite logging heavy rotation minutes. While he contributed solid weak-side defensive rotations and hustle plays, his refusal to look for his own shot bogged down the spacing. You cannot play heavy minutes as a floor spacer and refuse to pull the trigger without hurting the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 33.4m -17.3
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 32.2m
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.3

A heavy diet of contested, off-the-dribble jumpers tanked his offensive value and derailed the team's half-court rhythm. He tried to compensate with relentless hustle and active hands on defense, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions was too much to overcome. Better shot selection is required to translate his physical tools into positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +6.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 32.2m -16.6
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Keyonte George 27.8m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-18.8

Disastrous shot selection and an inability to finish through contact resulted in a massive negative impact. He repeatedly settled for heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, completely stalling the offensive engine. Even adequate point-of-attack defense couldn't salvage a performance defined by offensive futility.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -59.0
+/- -36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense -9.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 27.8m -14.4
Impact -18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Jusuf Nurkić 19.8m
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Forced, low-percentage flips around the basket severely hampered his offensive efficiency. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage against quicker guards, often finding himself caught in no-man's land. The inability to convert easy looks in the paint ultimately drove his impact score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 19.8m -10.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.6

Slicing through the defense with decisive drives and crisp decision-making fueled a highly productive offensive showing. He consistently made the right reads when the defense collapsed, balancing his own scoring surge with high-level facilitation. This breakout efficiency was the primary engine for his positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 29.3m -15.2
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.0

Punishing late closeouts with confident perimeter shooting sparked a massive offensive resurgence. He paired this floor-stretching dynamic with disciplined weak-side rim protection, altering several attempts at the basket. This was a textbook three-and-D performance that dramatically elevated the team's ceiling while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 24.7m -12.9
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kevin Love 16.0m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Missing wide-open trail threes completely negated his value as a floor-spacing big. Opponents actively targeted his lack of lateral mobility in the pick-and-roll, forcing rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell. When the jumper isn't falling, his physical limitations become glaringly apparent.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -69.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 16.0m -8.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Early foul trouble or rotational decisions severely limited his opportunity to establish any offensive rhythm. He managed a couple of quick buckets in transition but otherwise faded into the background during his brief stints. The lack of sustained court time prevented him from making his usual two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +53.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 8.4m -4.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Failed to leave any meaningful imprint on the game during a brief rotational cameo. He looked hesitant to attack the paint, settling into a passive role that allowed the defense to ignore him. The lack of downhill pressure rendered his minutes effectively empty.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -114.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 6.1m -3.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

An abrupt departure from his recent scoring tears left him looking completely out of sync in limited action. He forced a couple of tough looks instead of letting the game come to him, while offering zero resistance on the defensive end. The coaching staff clearly saw enough early on to pull the plug on his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -114.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 6.1m -3.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Ajay Mitchell 28.8m
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.3

A stark drop in scoring aggression and perimeter misfires cratered his overall impact. He struggled to find a rhythm against physical coverage, failing to generate the downhill pressure he usually provides. The lack of secondary hustle or defensive playmaking left him as a net negative during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +50.3
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 28.8m -14.9
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 25.4m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Point-of-attack defensive pressure was the defining factor here, generating a massive defensive impact score. While his offensive volume dipped significantly from his recent average, he took care of the ball and hit timely perimeter shots. He proved you don't need a high usage rate to control the flow of a game.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +13.5
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 25.4m -13.2
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 25.0m
25
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+23.2

Elite interior finishing and relentless downhill attacking drove a massive positive impact score. He paired this offensive explosion with high-level defensive engagement, disrupting passing lanes and generating extra possessions through sheer effort. This was a masterclass in two-way efficiency that completely overwhelmed his matchups.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +36.2
Avg player in 25.0m -13.0
Impact +23.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylin Williams 23.8m
5
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

Heavy reliance on the three-point shot backfired, as perimeter misfires severely dragged down his offensive value. Despite the shooting slump, he maintained high-level activity with strong rotational defense and hustle plays that partially mitigated the damage. Tightening his shot selection when the jumper isn't falling will be key going forward.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +55.8
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 23.8m -12.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 22.6m
25
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.9

Near-perfect shot execution around the rim fueled a dominant offensive rating. His rim protection and spatial awareness anchored the defense, forcing opponents into low-percentage looks all night. The combination of hyper-efficient scoring and paint deterrence resulted in a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 35.8%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.5
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 22.6m -11.8
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Blistering perimeter efficiency broke him out of a recent shooting slump and heavily inflated his offensive metrics. However, his overall impact was dragged down by slow defensive rotations and a failure to contain dribble penetration. The shot-making was vital, but he gave too much of it back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 25.9m -13.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.1

Despite finding a rare offensive rhythm and converting efficiently from deep, his overall impact slipped into the red. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, allowing too many clean looks for his assignments. The scoring surge masked underlying rotational issues that hurt the team's half-court integrity.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +59.8
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 24.4m -12.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Capitalizing on an unexpected offensive surge, he stretched the floor effectively to punish drop coverage. His defensive positioning and rim deterrence added hidden value that kept his overall impact in the green. This was a stark, positive deviation from his recent lack of production.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 24.2m -12.6
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Catch-and-shoot perfection from the corners drove a highly efficient offensive outing. He continues a hot streak of punishing closeouts, though his defensive impact remained relatively neutral. His ability to bend the floor without demanding the ball was the catalyst for his positive score.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 20.1m -10.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Floating on the perimeter without forcing the action resulted in a highly forgettable stint. He failed to generate any meaningful defensive pressure or hustle events to justify his floor time. The lack of assertiveness on either end allowed opponents to dictate the tempo during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -68.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 11.5m -6.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided a brief but stable presence in limited action, hitting a timely perimeter jumper to keep the offense flowing. He stayed disciplined within the defensive scheme, avoiding costly fouls or blown assignments. A low-event, mistake-free shift that resulted in a marginal positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 8.4m -4.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0