GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 39.3m
11
pts
18
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.0

Complete domination of the painted area dictated the terms of engagement for both teams. His massive defensive rating stems from elite rim deterrence and erasing multiple blown assignments by the perimeter guards. By securing every available defensive board, he single-handedly prevented second-chance opportunities and fueled the transition game.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.9
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 39.3m -18.6
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Anthony Edwards 36.7m
24
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.5

Brutal shot selection heavily mitigated the value of his high scoring volume. He repeatedly bailed out the defense by jacking up contested off-the-dribble threes early in the clock instead of leveraging his explosive first step. While his defensive engagement remained high, the sheer number of wasted offensive possessions kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 7/24 (29.2%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 36.7m -17.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

Punctured the opposing drop coverage by hunting transition threes and attacking closeouts with decisive drives. His off-ball movement constantly warped the defensive shell, creating passing windows for the primary creators. Strong positional defense and timely digs in the post rounded out a highly effective two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 33.1m -15.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Julius Randle 32.4m
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Uncharacteristic passivity and a reluctance to attack the paint resulted in a slightly negative overall showing. While he battled hard on the defensive glass, his failure to command double-teams starved the perimeter shooters of clean looks. The offense bogged down significantly when he settled for contested isolation attempts instead of bullying his way inside.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 32.4m -15.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

A disastrously cold start forced an early exit after he missed multiple looks and disrupted the offensive spacing. His sudden inability to finish plays completely stalled out the starting unit's momentum. The steep drop-off from his recent hot streak left a glaring hole in the perimeter attack.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 8.8m -4.2
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 28.9m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Settling for pick-and-pop triples that refused to fall severely limited his offensive utility. Despite bringing excellent energy and physicality to his defensive matchups, the missed outside shots triggered long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. He struggled to establish deep post position, allowing smaller switch defenders to off-hook him easily.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 28.9m -13.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Mike Conley 23.9m
6
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.2

Masterful game management and disruptive perimeter defense drove a highly impactful performance despite low scoring totals. He dictated the tempo beautifully, ensuring the offense flowed into high-percentage actions while completely avoiding costly live-ball turnovers. His exceptional screen navigation and active hands blew up multiple pick-and-roll sets on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 23.9m -11.4
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Bones Hyland 18.6m
9
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

A mixed bag of an outing where solid playmaking reads were offset by erratic perimeter shooting. He kept the second unit organized and delivered the ball on time, but missing wide-open looks allowed defenders to duck under screens. His overall impact zeroed out as the offensive initiation balanced the poor finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 18.6m -8.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Provided a massive jolt of instant offense by confidently stepping into catch-and-shoot opportunities. His willingness to let it fly without hesitation punished defensive rotations and stretched the floor perfectly during a crucial second-half run. He maximized his brief stint purely through elite shot-making efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 12.2m -5.8
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a brief, disjointed rotation appearance. His inability to knock down an open look allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. The lack of offensive gravity quickly made him a liability, forcing an early substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 6.1m -2.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Bobby Portis 39.1m
16
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

A heavy diet of forced, contested jumpers dragged down his overall effectiveness despite strong defensive rebounding metrics. His shot selection short-circuited offensive possessions, negating the value of his high-energy rim protection. The scoring bump was purely a product of volume rather than quality execution.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 39.1m -18.7
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Myles Turner 37.6m
13
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.6

Settling for perimeter looks kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral. While his rim deterrence and hustle metrics were excellent, clanking outside shots stalled out half-court possessions. He bailed out opposing bigs by floating rather than leveraging his size in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 37.6m -17.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
24
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
+11.8

Elite point-of-attack defense and a relentless motor defined this dominant two-way performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm while generating massive value through deflections and loose ball recoveries. Operating as the primary initiator, his aggressive downhill attacks consistently collapsed the shell.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +5.9
Defense +12.6
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 37.3m -17.7
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 17.6%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 6
S Kyle Kuzma 32.2m
12
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.5

Extreme passivity cratered his overall value, as he barely looked at the rim despite highly efficient scoring when he did attack. The massive negative impact score suggests significant defensive lapses or costly live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. He completely vanished from the offensive flow during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 32.2m -15.4
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S AJ Green 23.4m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.7

An absolute black hole on the perimeter whose inability to connect from deep severely handicapped the spacing. Firing blanks on high-volume outside looks led directly to long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. The coaching staff left him out there to shoot out of his slump, but it only compounded the bleeding.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.7%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 23.4m -11.2
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Rollins 22.7m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.6

Constant rim pressure and aggressive passing lane reads drove a highly productive shift off the bench. He generated excellent secondary value by fighting through screens and securing long rebounds to ignite the break. Even with a slight dip in his recent scoring volume, his playmaking gravity kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 22.7m -10.8
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jericho Sims 19.2m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Perfect execution in his role as a rim-runner maximized his value during a highly efficient stint. He anchored the interior defense effectively, altering shots without committing costly fouls. His screen-setting and vertical spacing created massive gravity that opened up the perimeter for others.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 19.2m -9.1
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock completely derailed the offensive flow during his minutes. His inability to find a rhythm from deep resulted in empty possessions that allowed the defense to set up in transition. Despite decent defensive metrics, his shot-chasing actively hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 17.8m -8.5
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gary Harris 10.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

A completely invisible stint where he failed to register a single meaningful statistic while getting targeted defensively. His lack of aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Bleeding points on the other end without offering any offensive resistance tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 10.7m -5.0
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