GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 39.1m
34
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.8

Relentless rim pressure and elite transition hustle formed the backbone of a dominant backcourt showing. He consistently beat the primary defender off the dribble, forcing rotations that opened up his perimeter barrage. The combination of aggressive shot creation and tireless tracking on loose balls completely overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 39.1m -23.1
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jusuf Nurkić 31.6m
15
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.9

Sloppy ball security operating out of the high post severely undercut an otherwise bruising interior performance. He generated massive value through physical screens and rim deterrence, but telegraphed passes led directly to opponent transition opportunities. The cascading effect of those live-ball mistakes ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/11 (36.4%)
Advanced
TS% 58.4%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 31.6m -18.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kyle Filipowski 27.2m
6
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A stark regression in finishing touch completely derailed his offensive rhythm, snapping a long streak of high-efficiency outings. While he battled fiercely on the glass and anchored the paint defensively, his inability to convert standard post touches killed multiple possessions. The sheer volume of empty trips in the paint overshadowed his otherwise stellar physical effort.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 27.2m -16.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 26.2m
19
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Tunnel vision on drives yielded decent scoring numbers but disrupted the broader offensive flow. He consistently missed open kick-out windows, forcing tough contested finishes that occasionally bailed out the defense. Despite active hands on the perimeter, the stagnant ball movement during his usage spikes resulted in a slightly negative overall margin.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 26.2m -15.3
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 17.0m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Lethal spot-up spacing punished the defense for over-helping, maximizing his value in a specialized role. He capitalized on every catch-and-shoot opportunity without forcing the issue off the bounce. Disciplined closeouts on the other end ensured his offensive efficiency translated to a positive bottom line.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 141.8%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 17.0m -10.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
0
reb
13
ast
Impact
-7.3

High-level playmaking was completely undone by a porous point-of-attack defensive showing. Opposing guards easily navigated past his initial pressure, forcing the frontcourt into impossible rotation scenarios that bled easy layups. The flashy offensive orchestration couldn't compensate for how frequently he compromised the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.8
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 28.1m -16.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Complete offensive passivity allowed the defense to treat him as a non-factor, severely cramping the floor for his teammates. By refusing to look for his own shot, he short-circuited multiple offensive sets and bogged down the half-court execution. A lack of forceful defensive impact left him with no way to salvage an incredibly damaging shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 22.8m -13.3
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Decisive shot-making against scrambled closeouts provided a massive spark for the secondary unit. He recognized defensive coverages quickly, punishing drop schemes with smooth pull-up jumpers without hijacking the offense. Solid positional awareness on the other end ensured his scoring punch translated to a clean, positive margin.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 17.5m -10.3
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevin Love 16.3m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Brick-heavy perimeter execution and sluggish lateral movement made him a prime target for opponent mismatch hunting. He settled for heavily contested deep looks early in the clock, sparking fast breaks going the other way. The inability to stretch the floor or protect the paint resulted in a cratered net rating during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 16.3m -9.6
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Flashes of efficient shot creation were weighed down by minor defensive lapses at the point of attack. He struggled to fight through off-ball screens, occasionally losing his man and surrendering clean looks from the perimeter. While the offensive touch was crisp, the subtle defensive breakdowns kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -60.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 14.3m -8.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 39.5m
45
pts
11
reb
14
ast
Impact
+34.4

Absolute mastery of offensive pacing combined with staggering defensive engagement resulted in a transcendent overall rating. He dictated the terms of every pick-and-roll, punishing switches while simultaneously blowing up opponent actions with elite anticipation on the other end. The sheer gravity of his half-court orchestration completely broke the opposing defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 14/28 (50.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 13/16 (81.2%)
Advanced
TS% 64.2%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +38.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +14.1
Raw total +57.6
Avg player in 39.5m -23.2
Impact +34.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rui Hachimura 32.8m
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Efficient finishing around the rim masked a severely damaging overall floor game. His inability to contain dribble penetration or generate meaningful defensive friction allowed opponents to score at will during his shifts. The scoring bump was ultimately empty calories given how much he surrendered on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 32.8m -19.4
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S LeBron James 32.6m
28
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
+10.0

A massive spike in offensive aggression fueled a highly positive overall rating, even with his perimeter jumper completely abandoning him. His physical downhill drives collapsed the defense, while strong rotational awareness generated elite rim deterrence. The sheer volume of high-leverage possessions he successfully commanded easily offset the empty trips from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.6%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 32.6m -19.3
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Marcus Smart 27.7m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

An uncharacteristic perimeter barrage broke him out of a brutal shooting slump, yet his overall footprint remained slightly negative. Over-aggressive gambles in the passing lanes compromised the team's half-court shell, neutralizing the value of his hot hand. Despite generating elite hustle metrics, the defensive breakdowns kept his net impact hovering just below water.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +27.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 27.7m -16.2
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaxson Hayes 22.2m
16
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Flawless shot selection and relentless rim-running anchored a highly efficient shift. He capitalized on every lob and dump-off opportunity, extending a streak of hyper-efficient finishing by refusing to force looks outside his immediate comfort zone. Solid positional defense ensured those high-percentage conversions translated directly to a positive net margin.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 22.2m -13.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jake LaRavia 28.2m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Active hands and relentless energy on loose balls kept his head above water during a volatile stint. While he capitalized efficiently on his offensive touches, persistent struggles navigating screens led to defensive breakdowns. The extra possessions he generated through sheer effort barely offset the points surrendered on his assignments.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 28.2m -16.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Defensive versatility and strong rebounding numbers couldn't mask the offensive spacing issues he created. Opponents aggressively sagged off him in the half-court, clogging the driving lanes and stalling the team's primary actions. Even with disruptive on-ball defense, his inability to punish the gaps left his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 25.2m -14.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Maxi Kleber 19.0m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Passing up open looks severely bottlenecked the offensive flow, negating his fundamentally sound rim protection. He was overly deferential when the ball swung his way, allowing the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. The resulting 4-on-5 dynamic on offense dragged his net rating down despite solid rotational awareness.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +44.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 19.0m -11.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

A disjointed cameo derailed the second-unit offense and quickly earned him a spot back on the bench. Forced jumpers early in the shot clock led to empty trips, while a failure to stay in front of his man compounded the damage defensively. The coaching staff pulled the plug before the bleeding could worsen.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 5.3m -3.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief, ineffective run with the reserve unit. A lack of off-ball movement made him easy to guard, while defensive hesitation allowed opponents to dictate the tempo. He simply floated on the perimeter without leaving any tangible imprint on the contest.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 4.5m -2.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Blown assignments and rushed offensive decisions defined a disastrous stretch. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, bleeding points rapidly before being subbed out. The combination of forced attempts and zero defensive resistance made this a highly damaging rotational appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.9
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 3.0m -1.8
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0