GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 37.8m
23
pts
11
reb
13
ast
Impact
+0.8

An unusually muted overall impact score suggests the opponent's aggressive fronting schemes successfully disrupted his typical hub actions. While he still anchored the defense with brilliant positional awareness, the offense frequently stalled out when he was forced to operate from the perimeter. He settled for too many contested push shots instead of bullying his way to the restricted area.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.5
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 37.8m -21.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Cameron Johnson 35.7m
19
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Lethal weak-side spacing and disciplined closeout defense fueled a highly efficient two-way performance. He punished over-helps by constantly relocating to the corners, ensuring the offense never bogged down. That pristine shot selection maximized his value without requiring heavy on-ball reps.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 35.7m -20.5
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 35.7m
32
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

A blistering barrage of pull-up triples out of high pick-and-roll action broke the back of the opposing defense. He hunted mismatches ruthlessly in the third quarter, capitalizing on drop coverages with elite shot-making. Only some minor defensive lapses fighting through screens kept this from being a truly astronomical rating.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 35.7m -20.4
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bruce Brown 34.4m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.3

Getting repeatedly torched on straight-line drives absolutely decimated his defensive value. Even though he found some success scoring out of the dunker spot, his inability to stay in front of quick guards compromised the entire defensive shell. Those constant breakdowns at the point of attack forced rotations that bled open corner threes.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 34.4m -19.7
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Spencer Jones 18.9m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Scrappy perimeter defense and timely backcuts kept the momentum rolling during the non-Jokic minutes. He completely abandoned his struggling three-point shot in favor of aggressive slashes to the rim, which stabilized his efficiency. Generating multiple extra possessions via loose ball recoveries cemented his positive grade.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 18.9m -10.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Defensive miscommunications and late closeouts completely erased the value of his hot shooting hand. He frequently lost track of his man in transition, surrendering easy layups that swung momentum the wrong way. His offensive spark simply couldn't outpace the defensive bleeding he caused on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 27.0m -15.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.8

Pounding the air out of the ball at the top of the key led to stagnant, late-clock possessions. Even though he eventually knocked down a few bailout threes, the sluggish pacing disrupted the team's transition attack. A severe lack of off-ball hustle further limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 23.9m -13.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

Sheer physicality in the painted area allowed him to dominate his backup minutes with brutal efficiency. He punished smaller defenders on the block and established an impenetrable wall defensively. Controlling the glass on both ends prevented any second-chance opportunities for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 13.2m -7.5
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Zeke Nnaji 7.6m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Operating as an offensive zero allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint and disrupt spacing. While he managed to hold his ground on a few post-up defensive sequences, his complete lack of scoring gravity stalled out the second unit. The offense essentially played four-on-five during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 7.6m -4.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Provided a brief but stable presence during a quick first-half rotation shift. He executed the offensive sets cleanly without forcing any unnecessary actions. Staying disciplined within the defensive scheme ensured he didn't hurt the team during his limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 5.9m -3.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 39.3m
26
pts
16
reb
10
ast
Impact
+3.7

Elite defensive rebounding and physical interior defense drove a massive positive box score, but heavy offensive usage yielded diminishing returns. Forcing up contested midrange looks and bricking every perimeter attempt capped his overall ceiling. He essentially bullied his way to production through sheer volume rather than efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.5%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 39.3m -22.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Black 37.4m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Wasted possessions on forced drives into traffic severely undercut an otherwise active floor game. While he generated solid hustle metrics through deflections and loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of missed rim attempts dragged down offensive efficiency. His shot selection needs tightening to translate raw activity into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 37.4m -21.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Desmond Bane 36.4m
6
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-14.4

An uncharacteristic offensive disappearing act completely tanked his overall impact. Missing all of his perimeter attempts stalled out the offense, forcing others into late-clock situations. Despite respectable perimeter defense, the massive drop-off from his usual scoring production created a glaring negative differential.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 36.4m -20.8
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
26
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.2

Dominant two-way efficiency fueled a team-high impact rating, highlighted by deadly pick-and-pop execution. Punishing drop coverages with a barrage of spot-up triples stretched the floor beautifully for the primary creators. He anchored the paint defensively while maintaining a scorching shooting rhythm for the third consecutive game.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 86.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 28.6m -16.4
Impact +18.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Tyus Jones 19.1m
5
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Floating through his minutes as a pure passenger resulted in a net-negative showing. A complete lack of defensive resistance and zero hustle plays meant he was essentially invisible on one end of the floor. Passing up open looks to reset the offense only further stagnated the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -51.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 19.1m -10.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 28.9m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Capitalizing on defensive rotations allowed him to find a great rhythm as a spot-up threat, far exceeding his usual scoring output. However, his overall impact hovered near neutral due to defensive lapses in transition. He gave back nearly everything he gained on offense by frequently losing his man on backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.9m -16.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 19.4m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.2

Elite rim protection and relentless screen-setting defined this highly impactful reserve shift. He completely walled off the paint during the second quarter, altering multiple floaters and securing contested defensive boards. Those high-leverage hustle plays masked a somewhat clunky offensive showing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 19.4m -11.1
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Forcing difficult floaters early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive flow and led to empty trips. Despite showing flashes of aggressive point-of-attack defense, those poor offensive decisions allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. His tendency to play hero ball ultimately sank his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 19.3m -11.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Noah Penda 11.6m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Active hands in the passing lanes generated a solid defensive grade during his brief stint. Unfortunately, a lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely double team the primary ball handlers. He simply didn't command enough attention on the perimeter to swing the math in a positive direction.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -59.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 11.6m -6.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1