GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 29.2m
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

Flawless perimeter shooting single-handedly propelled his impact score into the positive. Hitting every single look from beyond the arc stretched the opposing defense past its breaking point. However, slightly negative defensive metrics prevented his overall rating from fully matching this explosive offensive output.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 6/6 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.2%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +49.9
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 29.2m -17.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 28.6m
14
pts
13
reb
13
ast
Impact
+19.6

Generational playmaking and otherworldly defensive metrics (+13.1) fueled a dominant overall performance. He willingly sacrificed his own scoring volume to systematically pick apart the defense with elite distribution. Dominating the hustle stats proved that his physical engagement dictated the terms of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +6.4
Defense +13.1
Raw total +36.9
Avg player in 28.6m -17.3
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 2
S Peyton Watson 27.8m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

An absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency drove his massive positive impact. He punished defensive rotations with lethal perimeter shooting while simultaneously locking down his assignments on the other end. This massive 67% spike in his scoring production was fueled entirely by pristine shot selection.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 27.8m -16.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 26.9m
27
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.0

High-volume perimeter sniping and surprisingly stout defense anchored a stellar two-way showing. He generated massive gravity by launching a dozen threes, converting at a rate that completely broke the opponent's defensive shell. The strong defensive metrics (+6.7) confirm he was fully engaged on both sides of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 26.9m -16.1
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 19.9m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.8

A brutal perimeter shooting performance cratered his overall impact score. Missing all of his looks from beyond the arc killed the team's spacing and routinely led to empty possessions. Even decent hustle numbers couldn't salvage a night where his offensive execution was completely broken.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +54.5
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 19.9m -12.0
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 27.3m
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Surgical finishing inside the arc and suffocating defense drove a highly efficient shift. He extended his streak of hyper-efficient shooting by taking only high-percentage looks and avoiding bad perimeter attempts. The combination of a 63% scoring spike and elite defensive metrics highlights a perfectly executed role-player performance.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 27.3m -16.4
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

A massive scoring surge fueled by relentless three-point shooting defined his positive impact. More than doubling his recent scoring average, he acted as a pure floor-spacer by taking every single one of his shots from beyond the arc. This extreme perimeter-heavy shot profile paid off handsomely and stretched the defense thin.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 24.6m -14.7
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.4

Excellent defensive metrics (+4.8) were entirely wasted by an inability to generate efficient offense. Clanking multiple perimeter looks routinely stalled out the second unit's momentum and led to empty trips. Even with a technical spike in his minimal scoring average, his offensive execution was far too poor to yield a positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 21.7m -13.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
12
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

A dominant rebounding presence and improved scoring aggression anchored his strong positive rating. He bullied his way to extra possessions on the glass, ensuring the offense had multiple bites at the apple. This 41% spike in his scoring output reflects a highly successful effort to establish him in the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 16.2m -9.8
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

A completely broken jumper doomed his minutes and severely tanked his overall value. Missing every single shot he took created massive dead weight for the offense, allowing defenders to completely ignore him on the perimeter. Decent hustle metrics couldn't come close to offsetting the damage of this scoreless, high-miss outing.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense -8.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total -3.9
Avg player in 11.5m -6.9
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Barely saw the floor and failed to make any meaningful impact during his brief cameo. Missing his only shot attempt resulted in a slightly negative rating for the night. He was essentially just a cardio participant during this extremely limited rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 3.1m -1.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 3.1m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

A microscopic stint on the court yielded negligible results across the board. He managed to secure a few loose balls but failed to convert his lone offensive look. The sample size here is simply too small to draw any major conclusions about his current form.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 3.1m -1.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 36.2m
27
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

High scoring volume masked a highly inefficient night from the perimeter, pulling his net impact into negative territory. Clanking seven shots from deep severely damaged his offensive efficiency despite decent interior finishing. His heavy reliance on contested triples ultimately hurt the team's overall possession quality.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 36.2m -21.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jusuf Nurkić 34.5m
17
pts
14
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.1

Elite work on the glass and exceptional defensive metrics anchored a highly productive shift. He stretched the floor perfectly by hitting both of his perimeter looks, which subsequently opened up passing lanes. Dominating the hustle categories (+5.8) ensured his physical presence dictated the tempo on both ends.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -39.4
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 34.5m -20.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keyonte George 33.9m
20
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.6

A glaring disconnect exists between his productive traditional stats and a deeply negative overall impact. While he scored efficiently and facilitated well, his minutes likely coincided with massive opponent runs. The lack of high-leverage hustle plays (+0.4) suggests he was a step slow to 50/50 balls despite the gaudy offensive numbers.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 33.9m -20.5
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ace Bailey 24.0m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Disastrous shot selection and poor conversion rates cratered his overall value. Forcing up bad looks from deep led to a steep drop in his usual scoring output, routinely stalling out offensive sets. Negative defensive metrics further compounded the damage from this exceptionally cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -47.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 24.0m -14.5
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Svi Mykhailiuk 14.3m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A sharp regression to the mean dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. Missing all of his attempts inside the arc completely negated the marginal floor-spacing value he provided. This steep drop in production from his recent scoring surge highlights a stark lack of offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -72.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 14.3m -8.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-9.2

Elite defensive metrics (+4.4) and high-level facilitation were completely undone by a catastrophic scoring drought. Missing nearly all of his attempts from the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. This massive 86% drop in scoring production severely handicapped the team's half-court offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 23.8m -14.3
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Outstanding defensive engagement and high-motor hustle plays salvaged a rough shooting performance. Even with his scoring output dipping significantly below his recent average, his willingness to do the dirty work (+4.0 Hustle) kept his impact firmly positive. He successfully found ways to contribute to winning basketball when his perimeter shot abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 23.2m -14.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Tremendous defensive activity and relentless hustle completely masked a dreadful shooting night. He bricked nearly everything inside the arc, but his willingness to fight for loose balls (+3.5) kept his impact in the green. It was a classic grit-and-grind performance where pure effort compensated for a total lack of offensive touch.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 16.5m -9.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

A drastic reduction in offensive volume didn't stop him from maintaining a positive net impact. He extended his streak of highly efficient shooting by converting all his looks, while shifting his focus entirely to the defensive end (+3.0). Maximizing these limited touches allowed him to be a stabilizing two-way presence in short minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 12.7m -7.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Improved shot selection helped him inch out a slightly positive overall rating. After struggling heavily with his efficiency in recent outings, he took smarter looks and converted at a much better clip. Solid positional defense and timely hustle plays provided just enough supplementary value to keep his head above water.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 12.6m -7.5
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his overall value despite putting up decent defensive metrics. Failing to attempt a single shot after averaging over 17 points recently shows a shocking lack of aggression. You simply cannot be a net positive when you completely remove yourself from the scoring equation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 8.2m -5.0
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1