GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
19
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

Relentless perimeter aggression yielded a strong positive rating, even if his overall shooting efficiency was slightly pedestrian. His willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense thin, while his tenacious point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's backcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.9
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 37.3m -19.8
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 36.7m
13
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.3

High-level defensive rotations and solid playmaking were entirely undone by poor finishing in traffic. His inability to convert contested looks dragged down an otherwise well-rounded two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 36.7m -19.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 35.5m
16
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.0

Absolute dominance in the painted area dictated the terms of the game on both ends of the floor. By combining flawless interior finishing with suffocating rim deterrence, he generated a massive positive swing whenever he was on the court.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +6.1
Defense +10.6
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 35.5m -18.8
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 44.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 4
S Julius Randle 35.3m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

A heavy diet of forced, contested jumpers snapped his recent streak of elite efficiency and nearly tanked his overall value. Surprisingly, it was his engaged weak-side defense and physical box-outs that kept his net impact barely above water.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.9
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 35.3m -18.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bones Hyland 34.1m
12
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.5

Errant shot selection from beyond the arc severely handicapped the second-unit offense. Firing away early in the shot clock without rhythm allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, resulting in a steep negative shift during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 34.1m -18.1
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 30.1m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Settling for heavily contested perimeter bombs rather than attacking the basket dragged his overall efficiency into the red. While he provided adequate weak-side help defense, his cold shooting stalled several crucial offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 30.1m -15.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack caused his net impact to plummet during a short rotation. Opposing guards consistently blew past him, forcing the defense into rotation and bleeding points at an alarming rate.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -45.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 11.1m -5.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Connecting on spot-up opportunities from deep provided a brief offensive flash, but his inability to finish through contact inside negated that value. He struggled to stay in front of his man defensively, leading to a marginal negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 10.9m -5.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Rushed offensive execution in a brief stint off the bench prevented him from making a positive mark. He provided a slight spark with his on-ball pressure, but clanking open looks ultimately hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 9.0m -4.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Santi Aldama 34.3m
8
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

A stark disconnect between his individual rebounding effort and his overall negative impact suggests he struggled within the flow of the team's rotations. His inability to stretch the floor from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag, bogging down the half-court offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 34.3m -18.1
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
28
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.6

Elite two-way execution drove a massive positive impact, anchored by stifling rim protection and highly efficient shot selection. His ability to anchor the defense while punishing mismatches efficiently in the paint kept Memphis in control during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +8.3
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 33.5m -17.6
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S Jaylen Wells 31.4m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.8

A massive breakout performance was fueled by relentless point-of-attack defense and timely shot-making that far exceeded his recent baseline. His aggressive perimeter containment completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm, driving an elite two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +7.0
Defense +10.4
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 31.4m -16.5
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 27.2m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Blanking from beyond the arc severely hampered his overall effectiveness, allowing the defense to pack the paint. While he maintained his usual scoring volume, the lack of perimeter gravity stalled the offensive flow and dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 27.2m -14.5
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brandon Clarke 16.6m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Gritty hustle plays kept his impact in the green despite a rough shooting night around the basket. He salvaged a subpar finishing performance by generating extra possessions and maintaining high energy on the offensive glass.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 16.6m -8.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 29.9m
20
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.1

Spacing the floor as a stretch big completely unlocked the offense and drove a team-high net rating. By punishing drop coverage with a barrage of perimeter makes, he forced the defense into impossible rotations while simultaneously anchoring the paint on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.6
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 29.9m -15.8
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.5

Offensive invisibility and bricked finishes around the rim cratered his value during this rotation. Even a handful of solid hustle plays couldn't mask the damage caused by his inability to capitalize on open looks.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 25.1m -13.3
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.0

Clanking a high volume of contested looks actively harmed the team's offensive efficiency. Without his usual lockdown defensive presence to compensate, his poor shot selection resulted in a steep negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 23.2m -12.3
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

A sharp drop in usage from his recent hot streak limited his ability to influence the game. Despite converting the few looks he got, his passive approach allowed the defense to ignore him and focus on primary creators.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 15.3m -8.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by a rushed perimeter attempt that killed an offensive possession. He failed to find the flow of the game during his short time on the floor, resulting in a quick negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -97.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0