GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 34.8m
16
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+20.4

An absolute two-way masterclass defined by flawless shot selection and suffocating interior defense. He operated perfectly as a dribble-handoff hub at the top of the key, picking apart the defense with his passing while finishing everything around the rim. This combination of elite offensive efficiency and dominant rim protection resulted in a massive +20.4 net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +11.5
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 34.8m -17.1
Impact +20.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 2
28
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.3

Heavy offensive volume drove a solid positive impact, though the sheer number of missed perimeter jumpers capped his overall ceiling. He effectively weaponized his high release point over smaller defenders to generate his own offense, keeping the scoring engine running. While the efficiency wasn't elite, his constant spacing threat and adequate defensive rebounding kept his net score firmly in the black.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 33.7m -16.6
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Terance Mann 30.5m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Extreme offensive passivity dragged his overall impact into the negative despite solid rotational defense. He repeatedly passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the ball movement and forcing teammates into late-clock bailouts. His reluctance to look at the rim essentially allowed the defense to play five-on-four on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 30.5m -15.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 27.9m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.0

A brutal combination of high usage and terrible shot selection resulted in a severely damaging net impact. He actively shot his team out of possessions by forcing contested pull-up threes early in the shot clock instead of running the offense. Without any defensive playmaking to offset the bricks, his minutes were highly detrimental to the team's overall rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 27.9m -13.8
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 26.2m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

A catastrophic perimeter shooting display completely nuked his overall impact despite respectable defensive effort. He kept firing from deep despite being completely out of rhythm, squandering valuable possessions and allowing the defense to pack the paint. Those wasted offensive trips far outweighed the positive contributions he made through weak-side rim protection.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/9 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.1%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 26.2m -12.9
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Danny Wolf 19.6m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Strong positional defense and rim deterrence were undercut by a sloppy offensive showing. He frequently rushed his touch shots in the paint, leaving points on the board and hurting the team's half-court efficiency. The missed bunnies ultimately tipped his overall impact into the negative despite his reliable defensive anchoring.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 19.6m -9.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

Offensive inefficiency was the primary culprit behind his steep negative net impact. He consistently drove into heavy traffic without a bailout plan, resulting in blocked shots and wasted possessions. The defensive effort was present, but it couldn't mask the damage done by his inability to convert around the basket.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 18.9m -9.4
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Faded into the background offensively, failing to register a meaningful volume of attempts or bend the defense. While his hustle metrics were respectable, he struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, giving up a few crucial perimeter looks. That combination of offensive invisibility and minor defensive lapses resulted in a slightly negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 18.7m -9.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Made the most of his limited rotation minutes by dominating the physical battles in the paint. He generated crucial second-chance opportunities via the offensive glass, punishing the opponent's smaller second unit. This high-energy, low-mistake approach yielded a very sturdy positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 13.2m -6.6
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 12.5m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Provided a quick injection of perimeter scoring that kept his net impact in the positive range. He effectively punished late closeouts from the corners, knocking down his open looks with confidence. However, a lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption prevented his score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 12.5m -6.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Logged barely enough minutes to break a sweat, resulting in a nearly flat net impact. He provided a quick burst of on-ball pressure during his brief stint, registering a slight defensive positive. Ultimately, the sample size was too small to swing the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.9m -1.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 32.9m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

High-level defensive engagement and active hands in the passing lanes couldn't completely erase the damage done by a frigid shooting night. His overall impact slipped into the red because he repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock rather than attacking the rim. The perimeter hustle kept the floor relatively stable despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +5.5
Defense +6.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 32.9m -16.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Norman Powell 32.6m
24
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.1

Efficient shot creation and surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense fueled a highly productive outing. He consistently attacked closeouts with decisive straight-line drives, collapsing the defense and generating high-quality looks. That aggressive downhill mentality paired with disciplined perimeter containment kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.0
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 32.6m -16.1
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 31.1m
8
pts
17
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Elite rim protection and defensive rebounding were entirely overshadowed by a brutal offensive showing that cratered his net impact. He routinely struggled to finish through contact in the paint, squandering high-percentage looks around the basket. Those empty offensive trips allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, severely punishing the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 31.1m -15.3
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S Kel'el Ware 30.3m
22
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

A masterclass in two-way efficiency drove a massive +20.6 overall impact during his shift. He dominated the pick-and-roll as a constant lob threat, punishing drop coverages while simultaneously anchoring the paint on the other end. His ability to convert high-value looks at the rim maximized every offensive possession he was involved in.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +8.7
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 30.3m -14.9
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 29.9m
10
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.6

Despite solid point-of-attack pressure and active playmaking, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to sloppy offensive execution. He frequently over-penetrated into traffic, resulting in stalled possessions and costly live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. The defensive hustle simply wasn't enough to offset the points given away in transition.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 29.9m -14.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Brilliant isolation scoring masked a relatively quiet night in the hustle and defensive departments, resulting in a nearly flat net impact. He ruthlessly exploited mismatches in the post to generate efficient offense, but occasional defensive lapses allowed his assignments to match his production. Ultimately, his scoring volume was just barely enough to keep his overall footprint slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 29.0m -14.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Dru Smith 24.4m
3
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.5

Tenacious on-ball defense and excellent gap discipline were nearly undone by a disastrous perimeter shooting performance. His inability to punish the defense for sagging off him clogged the driving lanes for everyone else, stalling the half-court offense. Bricking multiple wide-open spot-up looks ultimately tipped his overall impact into the red despite his defensive heroics.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 24.4m -12.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Poor shot selection and a lack of defensive resistance severely hampered his effectiveness on the floor. He repeatedly forced contested shots late in the clock rather than keeping the ball moving, resulting in empty possessions. Without any meaningful hustle plays to compensate, his overall impact cratered.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 22.2m -10.9
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

A brief rotational stint yielded a slightly negative impact due to minor defensive miscommunications rather than offensive mistakes. He was caught out of position on a couple of weak-side rotations, giving up easy cutting lanes to the basket. While he knocked down his only look, the defensive bleed in limited minutes dragged his score down.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 7.6m -3.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1