GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 34.6m
16
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.1

Struggling to create separation against physical point-of-attack defenders, a sharp decline in scoring efficiency dragged his net impact slightly below zero. He settled for contested mid-range pull-ups that clanked off the iron, stalling the offensive rhythm. High-level defensive engagement and active hands prevented his poor shooting from becoming a total liability.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 34.6m -17.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cameron Johnson 31.9m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Bricking multiple wide-open looks stalled offensive momentum and derailed what was otherwise a spectacular defensive performance. He was a menace in the passing lanes and provided elite weak-side help, anchoring the perimeter defense. Ultimately, the sheer volume of missed jumpers outweighed his tremendous hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.7%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 31.9m -16.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

Hijacking possessions early in the shot clock, a disastrous string of forced jumpers completely derailed the offensive flow. He consistently allowed the opponent to leak out in transition off long, contested rebounds. Marginal defensive effort did nothing to stop the bleeding from his inefficient gunning.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 29.9m -15.2
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nikola Jokić 29.1m
25
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.9

Depressing his usual astronomical impact rating, uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact at the rim allowed the defense to stay home on shooters. While his playmaking and rebounding gravity remained elite, the sheer volume of missed interior looks bogged down the half-court offense. He still ground out a positive rating through sheer attrition and offensive rebounding.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 42.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 29.1m -14.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Spencer Jones 27.8m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Relentlessly chasing shooters off the line, his timely cutting and active off-ball movement generated a positive impact. He made his mark by providing a steadying defensive presence despite a cold night from beyond the arc. A massive spike in scoring aggression compared to his recent baseline kept the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 27.8m -14.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 27.7m
12
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

Thriving in the chaotic transition game, relentless energy on the glass and opportunistic cutting fueled a massive positive swing. He punished a disorganized defense with hard drives to the cup, continuing his streak of hyper-efficient shooting. Serving as the ultimate connective tissue for the second unit, his hustle metrics were off the charts.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 27.7m -14.2
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Finding success backing down smaller guards in the mid-post, his highly efficient scoring stint was undermined by defensive passivity. He gave those points right back by dying on screens at the other end and failing to contest shooters. The inability to generate stops or loose balls kept his overall impact mired in the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 22.4m -11.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Anchoring the drop coverage effectively, his imposing physical play in the painted area forced the defense to collapse. He used his massive frame to deter drives and alter shots at the rim, opening up the perimeter for his teammates. This steady interior presence provided a reliable anchor during a crucial mid-game stretch.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 15.7m -8.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 11.3m
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Outmuscled for positioning on both ends, complete offensive invisibility and a failure to secure the glass made him a liability. He allowed second-chance opportunities that fueled opponent runs during his brief rotation stint. A lack of decisiveness when catching the ball stalled out multiple half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 11.3m -5.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Floating on the perimeter without making an impact, rushed attempts and a complete lack of defensive resistance marked a highly ineffective cameo. He failed to register a single hustle or defensive metric, getting blown by on straight-line drives. The inability to knock down open looks continues to plague his spot minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 30.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 4.8m -2.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock, poor shot selection and defensive miscommunications sank his brief time on the hardwood. He failed to move the ball to better options, short-circuiting the offensive flow. A negative defensive rating highlights his struggles to stay in front of quicker wings on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 4.8m -2.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 39.5m
31
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.3

Punishing defenders who went under screens, his searing perimeter efficiency anchored a massive offensive footprint. His shot-making gravity opened up the floor, driving a dominant positive impact. Consistent defensive positioning ensured he didn't give back the value he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 82.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 39.5m -20.1
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
22
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Robust defensive rotations and rim-deterrence salvaged his value on a night where heavy perimeter volume yielded mixed results. He found ways to contribute without the ball, fighting through screens to disrupt opposing actions. This defensive connectivity kept his net impact above water despite the capped offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 38.5m -19.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Amen Thompson 38.3m
16
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.1

Completely erasing the damage from a lukewarm shooting night, elite defensive playmaking and disruptive length defined his floor time. He consistently blew up passing lanes and generated transition opportunities through sheer athleticism. The lack of perimeter touch remains a limiting factor, keeping his overall impact perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.7
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 38.3m -19.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 30.4m
8
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.7

Snapping a streak of high-efficiency outings, his stark drop in scoring aggression resulted in a negative offensive footprint. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups, leading to forced looks and empty possessions. Despite commendable rim protection and hustle, the lack of offensive gravity cratered his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 30.4m -15.5
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Josh Okogie 28.6m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Capitalizing on spot-up opportunities when left unattended in the corner, he delivered a surprising scoring outburst from beyond the arc. However, hidden defensive lapses and off-ball mistakes dragged his net rating into the red. His inability to contain dribble penetration ultimately negated the unexpected offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 28.6m -14.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
28
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+22.9

Hunting high-value looks from deep, he delivered an absolute masterclass in shot selection and perimeter execution. He leveraged his scoring threat to generate elite defensive hustle numbers, completely overwhelming the opposing backcourt during a massive second-half stretch. This two-way dominance fueled a monstrous net impact score.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +24.3
Hustle +6.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 30.0m -15.3
Impact +22.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
Steven Adams 25.2m
1
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Failing to convert multiple point-blank putbacks, his complete offensive invisibility at the rim severely limited his effectiveness. His massive screening presence and rebounding volume kept the offense churning, but the lack of finishing allowed defenders to sag off entirely. Solid positional defense wasn't enough to overcome the scoring drag.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 25.2m -12.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Unable to initiate the offense or pressure the rim, empty minutes tanked his brief rotation stint. He failed to create separation, resulting in stagnant possessions whenever he touched the ball. A complete lack of scoring threat allowed the defense to overload the strong side without consequence.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -83.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -6.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total -4.3
Avg player in 8.0m -4.1
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Logging barely enough time for a quick breather, this brief cameo appearance left no statistical footprint. His limited deployment prevented him from establishing any rhythm or defensive impact. The negative score stems entirely from being on the floor during a quick opponent run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0