GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 39.9m
23
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.0

Tenacious weak-side shot blocking and high-motor rebounding anchored a +9.0 impact, more than making up for a cold shooting night from deep. Even when his jumper failed to fall, his sheer physical presence and defensive versatility dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.4
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 39.9m -21.0
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Anthony Davis 37.4m
15
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Absolute dominance as a rim deterrent fueled a massive +13.7 defensive rating, completely erasing his inefficient shooting from the field. He single-handedly altered the opponent's shot profile, forcing them into contested floaters rather than challenging him at the basket.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +7.0
Defense +13.7
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 37.4m -19.7
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S P.J. Washington 36.7m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Disciplined positional defense and timely closeouts kept his impact in the green despite a relatively quiet offensive showing. He effectively weaponized his length to disrupt passing lanes, serving as a reliable connective piece in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 36.7m -19.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 33.3m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Bleeding value on the defensive end completely negated a highly efficient scoring night, resulting in a -4.0 net impact. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts and struggled to fight through off-ball screens, putting the entire defensive rotation in jeopardy.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.2%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 33.3m -17.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ryan Nembhard 21.7m
6
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.2

Over-dribbling and a tendency to force passes into tight windows dragged his overall impact into the negative. While he found success orchestrating the pick-and-roll at times, his defensive limitations at the point of attack allowed too much dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 21.7m -11.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc and a failure to generate rim pressure severely damaged his floor rating. His tendency to settle for contested jumpers early in the shot clock short-circuited offensive possessions and fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 31.3m -16.5
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.8

A brutal shooting slump from the perimeter completely tanked his value, resulting in a team-worst -11.8 impact score. Opponents aggressively chased him off the line, and his inability to punish them off the dribble rendered him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -33.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 19.3m -10.2
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Max Christie 19.2m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Timely perimeter spacing and disciplined closeouts drove a solid +2.0 impact rating during his minutes. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by knocking down crucial catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 82.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 19.2m -10.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Exceptional vertical spacing and rim protection in limited minutes fueled a highly productive +5.3 net rating. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition and provided a massive deterrent as a weak-side shot blocker.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.3
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 15.6m -8.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 5
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Passive offensive engagement and a lack of point-of-attack resistance contributed to a negative impact in his brief stint. He struggled to dictate the tempo, frequently deferring to teammates rather than initiating the offense himself.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 10.7m -5.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 44.5m
29
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
-3.2

Massive shot volume masked a highly inefficient outing that ultimately dragged his net impact down to -3.2. Settling for contested pull-ups and forcing passes into heavy traffic negated the value of his extremely high usage rate.

Shooting
FG 12/30 (40.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 44.5m -23.5
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Duren 34.4m
17
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.5

Relentless work on the offensive glass and formidable paint protection drove a stellar +11.5 impact rating. Even though his finishing efficiency dipped significantly from his recent hot streak, his sheer physical dominance inside dictated the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.8
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 34.4m -18.1
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 18.2m
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.7

A complete offensive disappearing act torpedoed his overall value, resulting in a brutal -11.7 net impact. His perimeter hesitation stalled the team's half-court flow, completely neutralizing the scoring punch he had provided in recent games.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -55.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 18.2m -9.6
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 13.0m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Cold shooting and defensive liabilities compounded to crater his floor rating to a dismal -11.3. Opponents actively hunted him on switches, and his inability to space the floor with his usual perimeter gravity left the offense completely stagnant.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -66.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.4
Raw total -4.5
Avg player in 13.0m -6.8
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.5

Despite seeing less than nine minutes of action, his energetic rim-running yielded a massive +5.5 overall impact. He maximized his brief floor time by converting high-percentage looks inside and maintaining active hands in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 8.9m -4.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Bruising interior defense and timely weak-side rotations anchored a sturdy +4.8 net rating. He effectively neutralized his primary matchup in the post while showing just enough pick-and-pop touch to keep the lane unclogged.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 31.4m -16.5
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Caris LeVert 27.1m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Stagnant ball-handling and ill-advised isolation attempts late in the shot clock resulted in a frustrating -5.2 impact score. His inability to break down his primary defender consistently stalled offensive momentum and led to empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 27.1m -14.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive lapses and poor closeouts on perimeter shooters dragged his net rating into the red despite decent shooting splits. He struggled to navigate screens effectively, allowing his man to find easy seams during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 20.4m -10.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Aggressive transition play and relentless cutting fueled a breakout performance that doubled his recent scoring average. His +4.9 impact was heavily driven by his willingness to attack the basket rather than settling for the perimeter jumpers that had previously plagued him.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 19.9m -10.5
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Elite hustle metrics and disruptive point-of-attack defense completely overshadowed a poor shooting night, driving a robust +6.6 impact. He generated extra possessions through deflections and loose-ball recoveries, proving his worth entirely without the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +7.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 18.4m -9.7
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 14.5m
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Quick-trigger decision making from beyond the arc kept the defense honest and yielded a slight positive impact. He provided a necessary spark of downhill aggression during the second quarter, though his defensive rotations remain a step slow.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 14.5m -7.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

A lack of offensive assertiveness and failure to bend the defense contributed to a -1.9 impact during his brief rotation. He operated too passively on the perimeter, missing opportunities to probe the paint and create advantages for teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +68.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 7.9m -4.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 6.4m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

A hyper-efficient stint off the bench yielded an outsized +7.0 impact rating in barely six minutes of action. He immediately changed the geometry of the floor with hard rolls to the rim and disciplined verticality on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +63.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 6.4m -3.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0