GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Onyeka Okongwu 39.5m
23
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.3

Elite offensive rebounding and second-chance generation carried his value, though defensive rotation errors limited his overall ceiling. He feasted on drop coverage by slipping screens early for uncontested finishes at the basket. Despite strong block numbers, late closeouts on stretch bigs kept his net impact surprisingly modest.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 39.5m -27.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 64.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 39.1m
8
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
-8.3

Elite point-of-attack harassment was completely overshadowed by offensive spacing issues that cratered his net rating. Defenders blatantly sagged off him on the perimeter, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates and stalling the half-court offense. His relentless ball pressure simply couldn't compensate for playing four-on-five on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.0
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 39.1m -27.1
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 35.6m
36
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.9

Relentless downhill attacking in semi-transition shattered the opponent's defensive shell and drove a massive positive rating. He consistently bullied smaller defenders on his way to the rim, finishing through contact with elite body control. His ability to grab the rebound and immediately initiate the break defined this dominant showing.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +33.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 35.6m -24.6
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Trae Young 26.4m
35
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+15.1

Masterful pick-and-roll manipulation and deep shooting gravity completely dismantled the opposing backcourt. He punished under-screens with immediate pull-up daggers, forcing the defense into panic rotations that opened up lob threats. The sheer volume of high-value offense he generated easily masked his typical defensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 87.7%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +30.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.7
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 26.4m -18.2
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 84.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

A massive breakout in perimeter scoring was completely undone by constant defensive lapses, resulting in a frustratingly negative net score. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy layups that erased his offensive gains. The scoring surge showed promise, but his off-ball awareness remains a major liability.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 24.3m -16.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-19.1

Forcing contested shots early in the shot clock derailed the offensive flow and resulted in a disastrous net rating. He repeatedly tried to shoot his way out of a slump, ignoring open teammates on the perimeter and fueling opponent run-outs. The resulting transition bleed completely overshadowed his solid effort fighting over screens.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 29.0m -20.0
Impact -19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
20
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.5

Lethal spot-up shooting from the corners stretched the defense to its breaking point and fueled a strong positive impact. He relocated perfectly along the baseline whenever the primary ball-handler penetrated, making the opponent pay for every over-help. This elite floor spacing was the sole catalyst for his highly effective stint.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 88.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 18.5m -12.8
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Exceptional weak-side rim deterrence anchored a highly effective defensive stint off the bench. He blew up multiple pick-and-roll sets by hedging hard and recovering with incredible closing speed. This defensive versatility kept him in the green despite minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 13.0m -9.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Passing up open perimeter looks neutralized his primary weapon and allowed the defense to pack the paint. His hesitation to pull the trigger disrupted the team's spacing, leading to stagnant possessions and a negative overall rating. Without his shooting gravity, his presence on the floor became a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 9.4m -6.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 5.3m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Blown defensive assignments during a brief cameo quickly dragged his impact score into the red. He struggled with the speed of the opponent's off-ball actions, getting caught out of position on multiple baseline cuts. The short leash prevented him from finding any rhythm to correct the early mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 5.3m -3.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 31.9m
19
pts
9
reb
12
ast
Impact
+2.8

Elite connective passing and tempo control kept the offense humming, driving a solid positive rating. He consistently manipulated the defense with his eyes to create wide-open weakside layups. Active hands in the passing lanes also contributed heavily to his strong defensive score.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 31.9m -22.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Coby White 31.1m
21
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.0

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely erased a solid scoring night, resulting in a severe negative net rating. Opposing guards consistently blew past his initial containment, forcing rotation scrambles that yielded open corner looks. His offensive rhythm couldn't compensate for being targeted in pick-and-roll switches.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 31.1m -21.5
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.5

Uncharacteristically poor perimeter spacing dragged his overall value into the red despite excellent positional rebounding. He settled for heavily contested pick-and-pop looks rather than exploiting mismatches in the post. However, his stout interior positioning saved his defensive metrics from matching his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.7
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 30.3m -21.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 28.9m
28
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.0

A massive surge in perimeter confidence completely warped the opponent's defensive shell and drove a dominant overall rating. Punishing late closeouts with a barrage of catch-and-shoot daggers defined his breakout performance. Strong weak-side rim deterrence further elevated his massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 7/8 (87.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 117.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +26.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +34.0
Avg player in 28.9m -20.0
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Isaac Okoro 18.6m
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Hyper-efficient shot selection at the rim anchored his positive impact, capitalizing perfectly on defensive breakdowns. He generated most of his value offensively rather than through his usual point-of-attack defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 18.6m -12.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 22.9m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.3

A sudden drop in offensive aggression limited his overall influence, snapping a streak of highly efficient outings. He deferred too often against drop coverage instead of attacking the paint to collapse the defense. Consequently, his impact hovered near neutral despite fundamentally sound defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 22.9m -15.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.7

Constant off-ball motion generated high-quality looks and drove a highly efficient positive rating. By curling tightly off pin-down screens, he forced defenders to trail the play and surrender clean catch-and-shoot opportunities. His underrated positional defense further stabilized his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 21.1m -14.6
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 16.7m
13
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Transition finishing fueled his box score metrics, but a lack of half-court involvement kept his total impact marginal. He thrived when leaking out off long rebounds to score before the defense could set. In slower possessions, his tendency to float on the perimeter minimized his overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 16.7m -11.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zach Collins 16.0m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Giving up deep post position negated a nearly flawless offensive stint around the rim. Opposing bigs easily sealed him off on the block, leading to high-percentage concessions that dragged his net score into the negative. His soft touch on hook shots couldn't outpace the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 16.0m -11.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Smith 13.2m
3
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Complete offensive passivity severely damaged his overall rating during a brief rotation stint. By failing to roll hard to the rim or demand the ball, he allowed the defense to play five-on-four against the primary ball handlers. Even decent rim-protection metrics couldn't salvage his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 13.2m -9.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Another night of forced, contested mid-range jumpers tanked his offensive value and prolonged a severe shooting slump. He struggled to create separation off the dribble, resulting in empty possessions that stalled team momentum. Zero hustle contributions further highlighted a disconnected performance.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 9.5m -6.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0