GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 41.5m
27
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.1

A massive volume of bricked jumpers severely undercut the value of his high-end playmaking and defensive engagement. He tried to shoot his way out of a slump, which led to long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite commendable point-of-attack pressure (+4.3 defense), the offensive inefficiency ultimately tipped his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.5m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 41.5m -21.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Ace Bailey 34.4m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Questionable shot selection from beyond the arc acted as a ceiling on an otherwise active two-way performance. While he generated extra possessions via a strong +3.7 hustle impact, clanking contested jumpers early in the shot clock handed the momentum right back. He needs to leverage his athleticism toward the rim rather than settling for long contested looks.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 34.4m -17.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Svi Mykhailiuk 30.9m
23
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.9

Lethal perimeter marksmanship and constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defensive shell, opening up driving lanes for everyone else. Beyond the jumper, an incredible +7.3 hustle rating highlighted his willingness to crash the long rebounds and dive for loose balls. He capitalized on every defensive miscommunication during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +7.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 30.9m -15.8
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 21.1m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

A drastic regression to the mean saw him struggle heavily against physical interior defense, snapping his streak of high-efficiency outings. Forced shots in the paint and a lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the lane. The resulting empty possessions completely cratered his net impact (-9.9) during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 21.1m -10.9
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jusuf Nurkić 21.1m
4
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operating primarily as a high-post hub, his screening and passing angles kept the half-court offense humming despite his own lack of scoring volume. He mitigated his offensive passivity with sturdy positional rebounding and timely box-outs. It was a utilitarian performance that barely moved the needle but maintained the structural integrity of the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 21.1m -10.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 31.9m
16
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.6

A vintage performance defined by elite defensive rebounding and lethal trail-three marksmanship that completely stretched the opposing frontcourt. He controlled the defensive glass with flawless positioning, instantly igniting the break with his outlet passing. This massive bounce-back game (+9.6 total impact) showcased his enduring value as a floor-spacing hub.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 31.9m -16.4
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.3

Defensive matador tendencies (-1.0 impact) completely erased the value of his dynamic downhill playmaking. While he orchestrated the offense beautifully in the half-court, he was repeatedly blown by on the perimeter, forcing the defense into scramble mode. The lack of resistance at the point of attack is why his overall net rating remains stubbornly in the red.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 28.1m -14.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Complete apathy in the hustle department (+0.0) compounded a frigid shooting night, resulting in a highly detrimental floor presence. Without his jumper falling, his lack of secondary effort or defensive playmaking became glaringly obvious. He failed to adapt to the physical perimeter coverage, settling for tough, contested looks instead of moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 24.6m -12.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

An absolute offensive zero who completely lost his confidence after a couple of early misses at the rim. While his length provided some defensive utility (+2.1 impact), his hesitancy to attack closeouts allowed the defense to play five-on-four. This was a stark and damaging regression from his recent aggressive scoring stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 12.7m -6.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Taking only high-value, wide-open looks allowed him to maximize his brief stint and generate a positive +2.8 impact score. He finally broke out of his recent shooting slump by letting the offense come to him rather than forcing the issue. Tightening up his weak-side rotations (-0.5 defense) will make these short bursts even more valuable.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 10.6m -5.4
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Rushed perimeter attempts and a total inability to create separation ruined his short stint on the floor. Although he competed hard on the defensive end (+2.6 impact), his offensive possessions were effectively turnovers that killed the team's momentum. He looked entirely out of rhythm against the length of the opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 8.1m -4.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 42.3m
23
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
-6.5

Heavy isolation usage resulted in a brutal string of clanked jumpers that torpedoed his overall net rating (-6.5). While he managed to generate decent defensive metrics, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions allowed the opponent to dictate the transition pace. He settled far too often against set half-court defenses.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 10/15 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.3m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 42.3m -21.5
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Anthony Black 39.6m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.9

Relentless energy plays and loose-ball recoveries drove a stellar hustle score (+5.2) that kept his overall impact in the green. He capitalized on broken plays and secondary actions rather than dominating the ball. That off-ball activity perfectly complemented the primary creators, even when his perimeter shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 39.6m -20.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 39.4m
32
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

High-volume shot creation fueled a massive offensive surge that eclipsed his recent scoring averages. His defensive engagement (+5.5 impact) matched his perimeter touch, allowing him to anchor the perimeter rotation effectively. The sheer efficiency of his pull-up game kept the opposing defense in constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 39.4m -20.1
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
14
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Consistent interior finishing extended his streak of highly efficient shooting nights, providing a reliable safety valve in the paint. His sturdy pick-and-roll coverage (+4.8 defensive impact) neutralized downhill threats, though a lack of sheer volume kept his total net impact modestly positive. He played exactly within his role without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 37.5m -19.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Tyus Jones 18.2m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Perimeter shot selection continues to be a glaring issue, with deep misses fueling long rebounds and opponent run-outs. Despite commendable point-of-attack defense (+3.0 impact) and active hands in passing lanes, the offensive dead ends dragged his overall rating into the red. He is currently struggling to punish drop coverages.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 18.2m -9.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 23.6m
13
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.6

An absolute revelation on the glass and in help-side coverage, generating a staggering +10.3 defensive impact score. He completely shattered his recent slump by outworking bigger matchups for second-chance opportunities. This two-way dominance dictated the tempo of the entire second half.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.3
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 23.6m -12.0
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Defensive lapses at the point of attack completely erased the value of his unexpected scoring bump. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, leading to a disastrous -7.3 total impact. The increased offensive aggression came at the direct expense of his rotational discipline.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 23.2m -11.8
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 15.6m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

Elite rim protection and flawless shot selection created a massive +7.5 net swing in just a quarter and a half of action. He completely sealed off the paint during the second-quarter rotation, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Maximizing every touch without demanding the ball is exactly what drove this highly efficient cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 15.6m -7.8
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jett Howard 14.8m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

A severe lack of off-ball movement and secondary effort plays (+0.2 hustle) rendered him nearly invisible during his stint. He failed to bend the defense on his limited touches, allowing defenders to easily recover. The resulting stagnant stretches tanked his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 14.8m -7.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped the second unit's spacing during his brief rotation. While he provided his standard weak-side rim deterrence (+1.1 defensive impact), the inability to punish closeouts made it too easy for the opponent to trap the ball-handler. He simply couldn't stay on the floor without crippling the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 11.0m -5.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0