GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
31
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+16.7

Complete mastery of pace and spacing allowed him to dissect the defense at all three levels. He generated massive value by consistently beating his primary defender, forcing rotations, and creating high-value looks at the rim. His elite defensive anticipation sparked multiple transition sequences, capping a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +5.5
Defense +11.6
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 35.6m -19.1
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jalen Williams 34.2m
24
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Relentless downhill attacking yielded a high volume of interior production, but a cold streak from beyond the arc capped his overall efficiency. He forced several contested mid-range looks late in the shot clock, which slightly depressed his net score despite heavy offensive lifting. His physical drives consistently collapsed the defense, even when the jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 34.2m -18.3
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 30.4m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.6

Suffocating perimeter defense and relentless screen navigation completely disrupted the opponent's primary actions. He compounded this defensive masterclass by punishing sagging defenders with timely perimeter shooting, forcing them to respect his range. This elite two-way synergy was the engine behind his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +5.5
Defense +12.2
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 30.4m -16.3
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 29.1m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

High-level point-of-attack defense and timely deflections kept his overall impact in the green. He struggled slightly to finish through contact on drives, but his disciplined closeouts and mistake-free spacing provided crucial connective tissue. His value was derived entirely from defensive disruption rather than offensive creation.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 29.1m -15.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Branden Carlson 24.7m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Pick-and-pop execution stretched the floor effectively, but he struggled to anchor the paint against physical drivers. Opponents successfully targeted his lack of lateral quickness in space, bleeding away the value of his offensive spacing. The defensive concessions ultimately outweighed his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 24.7m -13.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and elite positional rebounding defined this momentum-shifting stint. He consistently generated extra possessions by keeping balls alive and executed flawlessly as a connective passer in the half-court. This gritty, high-IQ performance perfectly glued the rotation together.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +38.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +7.3
Defense +9.8
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 25.0m -13.2
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Aggressive rim pressure and excellent body control in traffic drove a highly productive offensive shift. He consistently punished defensive miscommunications in the pick-and-roll, finding the soft spots in drop coverage. His active hands on defense further elevated his positive two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 22.2m -12.0
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Isaiah Joe 20.1m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.5

A severe lack of perimeter gravity crippled his impact, as defenders aggressively stunted off him to clog driving lanes. Without his shot falling, his defensive vulnerabilities were exposed in isolation matchups. The combination of empty offensive possessions and targeted defensive lapses resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 20.1m -10.9
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Solid defensive rotations could not mask his complete offensive invisibility. He passed up several open looks, stalling the offensive flow and allowing the defense to reset. This hesitancy to engage offensively dragged down his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 16.4m -8.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A rushed perimeter attempt early in the shot clock highlighted a disjointed and brief stint on the floor. He failed to establish any defensive rhythm or hustle presence before being subbed out. The lack of execution in limited action quickly pushed his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.2m -1.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Cam Spencer 34.8m
14
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.3

Playmaking vision was evident, but poor interior finishing and forced attempts in traffic severely depressed his net score. He struggled to navigate drop coverage effectively, leading to empty possessions that sparked opponent transition opportunities. While his perimeter stroke was reliable, the cumulative cost of missed floaters and contested layups proved too steep.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 34.8m -18.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jaylen Wells 32.5m
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.9

A brutal perimeter shooting slump cratered his offensive value and dragged down his overall impact. Despite generating solid defensive metrics, his inability to punish closeouts or convert open looks stalled Memphis's half-court execution. The sheer volume of empty possessions overshadowed his respectable hustle.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 32.5m -17.3
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

High-level defensive deterrence kept his head above water, but passive offensive involvement limited his ceiling. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical coverage, resulting in a low-volume shooting night that failed to tilt the math in Memphis's favor. His rim protection remains elite, yet the lack of offensive gravity neutralized his overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.2
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 31.6m -16.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jock Landale 25.8m
11
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Floor-spacing from the center position provided a distinct tactical advantage, pulling opposing bigs away from the paint. However, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive limitations in pick-and-roll coverage and a lack of elite rim deterrence. He gave back on the defensive glass whatever offensive versatility he provided.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 25.8m -13.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 24.8m
16
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.0

Exceptional decision-making as a secondary creator fueled a massive positive box score impact. He consistently exploited defensive rotations, finding cutters and shooters while punishing late closeouts with efficient perimeter execution. This two-way stability anchored the second unit during crucial transition stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 24.8m -13.3
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Santi Aldama 24.7m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts destroyed his offensive efficiency. A heavy diet of clanked threes fueled long rebounds and opponent fast breaks, severely punishing the team's transition defense. His inability to find alternative scoring avenues during this shooting slump anchored his massive negative score.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 24.7m -13.2
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

Elite shot selection and flawless spot-up execution defined this highly efficient stint. He operated strictly within the flow of the offense, punishing defensive lapses with lethal corner spacing that warped the opponent's help principles. This low-usage, high-yield profile perfectly complemented the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 116.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 20.7m -11.1
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Defensive lapses and missed rotations completely erased his efficient spot-up shooting. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, bleeding points at the point of attack and failing to offer meaningful weak-side resistance. The inability to string together stops rendered his offensive contributions moot.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -48.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.4
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 17.4m -9.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
GG Jackson 12.5m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Active hands and disciplined closeouts generated a robust defensive rating in limited minutes. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities without forcing the issue, providing a stabilizing two-way presence for the second unit. This focused, mistake-free shift maximized his value within a narrow role.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 12.5m -6.7
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Adequate rim deterrence was provided during his brief stint, altering several shots in the paint. However, his inability to command defensive attention as a roll man allowed opponents to aggressively trap the ball-handler. The offensive stagnation outweighed his modest defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 9.5m -5.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Operating strictly as a defensive specialist, he generated a solid positive rating on that end through aggressive point-of-attack pressure. His complete lack of offensive involvement allowed defenders to freely roam and clog the driving lanes for teammates. The zero-usage profile ultimately dragged down his net impact despite commendable energy.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -60.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2