GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 40.8m
26
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.7

A massive bounce-back performance was anchored by an absolutely suffocating defensive impact. He completely locked up his primary assignment on the perimeter, turning deflections into immediate downhill transition attacks. This two-way dominance dictated the terms of engagement all night, snapping his recent slump with aggressive, high-value shot selection.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 25.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +12.7
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 40.8m -20.2
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jaden McDaniels 37.0m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Clunky offensive execution and a barrage of missed jumpers severely punished his overall impact despite excellent hustle metrics. He allowed the defense to off-help by settling for contested long twos instead of pressuring the rim. While his length disrupted passing lanes, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged the team's momentum down.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 37.0m -18.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Heavy reliance on the three-ball yielded mixed results, ultimately dragging his net impact down due to missed assignments in transition. While his floor-spacing provided necessary gravity, he gave those points right back by getting caught ball-watching on defensive rotations. The volume of long misses frequently sparked long rebounds and odd-man rushes for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 33.4m -16.6
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 33.1m
9
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Strong rim protection wasn't enough to offset the negative impact of his offensive limitations and spacing issues. Opponents successfully neutralized his roll gravity by tagging early and daring the guards to make skip passes. The inability to punish smaller defenders on switches ultimately stalled the offense and pushed his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 33.1m -16.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 32.1m
19
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

Abysmal shooting efficiency from the floor completely undermined his ability to generate positive value. He repeatedly forced the issue into crowded paint coverage, resulting in empty trips that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The playmaking and physical volume artificially inflated his box score, masking just how damaging his shot selection was to the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 12/16 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 32.1m -15.9
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 30.6m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

Dominant interior defense and relentless energy around the basket drove a highly positive impact despite a cold night from beyond the arc. He abandoned the struggling perimeter shot to attack closeouts aggressively, finishing through contact at the rim. This tactical shift, combined with exceptional weak-side shot contests, completely stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 30.6m -15.2
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
Bones Hyland 15.7m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.8

Blistering perimeter efficiency and surprising defensive engagement fueled a massive net rating spike in limited minutes. He single-handedly tilted the momentum during a crucial second-half stretch by punishing drop coverages with deep pull-up triples. Staying disciplined within the scheme rather than forcing wild isolations maximized his offensive burst.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 15.7m -7.8
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Disastrous shot selection and an inability to convert in the paint cratered his net impact during his time on the floor. He repeatedly drove into congested areas, resulting in wild misses that ignited opponent fast breaks. The complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 12.0m -6.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

A lack of offensive assertiveness in his brief stint resulted in a slightly negative overall impact. He floated on the perimeter without pressuring the rim or generating any defensive rotations. Failing to leave a tangible imprint on the game flow rendered his minutes largely empty.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
35
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.3

Unstoppable isolation scoring and elite defensive playmaking resulted in a dominant total impact. He repeatedly punished drop coverage with his lethal midrange deceleration, keeping the defense constantly off-balance. The sheer gravity of his drives collapsed the opposing shell, masking the slight dip in his usual shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 12/26 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.7
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 37.0m -18.3
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jalen Williams 31.5m
17
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Relentless off-ball movement generated looks, but failing to finish through contact ultimately capped his overall ceiling. The sheer volume of missed two-pointers negated his otherwise stellar perimeter disruption, dragging his total impact into the slight negative.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +6.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 31.5m -15.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Luguentz Dort 28.8m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

A disastrous shot selection profile fueled a severe negative net impact, driven by forcing heavily contested triples early in the clock. His usually stout point-of-attack defense also slipped into the red, compounding the damage from his bricked jumpers. Settling for bail-out perimeter looks instead of attacking closeouts derailed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 28.8m -14.3
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
1
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Total offensive invisibility tanked his overall rating, completely offsetting a dominant defensive showing. Opponents blatantly ignored him in the half-court, packing the paint and stalling OKC's driving lanes. While his positional screen-setting was solid, playing 4-on-5 on the scoring end proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 27.5m -13.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 24.9m
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.3

Elite rim deterrence and timely rotations drove a massive positive impact. He completely altered the geometry of the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters and kick-outs. This disciplined verticality on defense allowed OKC to dictate the tempo without needing him to force offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 24.9m -12.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Phenomenal defensive metrics and relentless hustle couldn't overcome the severe drag of a completely dormant offensive showing. He passed up multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to aggressively sag into the paint. This hesitation to punish rotations ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact despite his lockdown perimeter work.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +4.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 26.8m -13.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Efficient secondary creation drove a solid box score impact, though defensive lapses nearly washed out his offensive contributions. He expertly navigated high pick-and-rolls during the second-quarter rotation, consistently finding the soft spots in the midrange. However, getting caught on screens and losing his man off the ball kept his overall net rating grounded.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 22.9m -11.3
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 22.5m
7
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

High-level defensive disruption and elite positional rebounding salvaged a positive impact despite poor shooting efficiency. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs at the point of attack, generating transition opportunities through sheer hustle. The offensive struggles were easily masked by his ability to secure extra possessions and dictate the physical tone.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 22.5m -11.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 12.9m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Smart spacing and timely floor-stretching yielded a positive impact despite a significant drop in his usual scoring output. His mere presence on the perimeter drew defenders out of the strong side, opening up crucial driving lanes for the primary creators. Remaining disciplined within the offensive flow ensured he added value without commanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 12.9m -6.4
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A brief, scoreless stint yielded a negative impact due to empty offensive possessions and missed perimeter looks. He provided a slight defensive bump by executing switches cleanly, but failed to generate any gravity on the other end. The inability to capitalize on limited touches quickly relegated him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0