GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 38.9m
24
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.9

Brutal perimeter inefficiency and forced isolation attempts completely derailed his overall impact. Settling for heavily contested long-range jumpers bailed out the defense and killed offensive momentum. Despite securing several contested boards, his poor shot selection acted as an anchor on the team's offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.7
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 38.9m -22.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.0m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

Getting bullied on the interior and failing to secure critical defensive box-outs led to a disastrous net rating. Opponents repeatedly targeted him in the pick-and-roll, exposing his slow lateral rotations. A few blown layups in traffic only exacerbated his massive negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 36.0m -20.5
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Relentless point-of-attack defense and high-energy closeouts kept his impact in the positive despite streaky perimeter shooting. He consistently fought over screens to deny dribble penetration, frustrating the opposing guards. The sheer volume of his defensive disruptions outweighed the cost of his missed deep looks.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 34.4m -19.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Trae Young 31.0m
22
pts
1
reb
15
ast
Impact
+6.8

Masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages generated high-quality looks for teammates, driving a strong positive score. Even with his outside shot failing to fall, his elite foul-drawing and rim-pressure collapsed the defense repeatedly. Hiding effectively in defensive schemes prevented him from giving back his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 31.0m -17.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Punctured the defense with timely weak-side cuts and highly efficient catch-and-shoot execution. His length disrupted multiple passing lanes, sparking transition opportunities that inflated his positive score. Staying within the flow of the offense prevented any forced, negative-value possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 20.8m -12.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.4

Lethal spot-up shooting punished the defense every time they over-helped on drives. His decisive, quick-trigger releases prevented defenders from recovering, maximizing the value of every touch. Smart positional defense and quick hands in the passing lanes rounded out a remarkably efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 105.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 28.5m -16.2
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 21.2m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

A breakout shooting performance from the perimeter completely warped the opponent's defensive spacing. Capitalizing on defensive miscommunications, he found soft spots in the zone to punish late closeouts. High-motor offensive rebounding further extended possessions and cemented his highly positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 21.2m -12.1
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Luke Kennard 20.8m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.0

A complete inability to find separation off screens rendered him an offensive liability and tanked his score. Opponents aggressively top-sided him, forcing him into contested, low-percentage looks that resulted in empty trips. Being repeatedly targeted and blown by on defense compounded the severe negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 20.8m -11.8
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Struggled to leave a meaningful imprint during a brief rotation stint, resulting in a slightly negative score. Hesitancy to initiate the offense allowed the defense to dictate the tempo and stall out sets. While he didn't make glaring mistakes, the lack of proactive playmaking limited his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 8.5m -4.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 36.1m
19
pts
11
reb
15
ast
Impact
-3.3

Elite distribution was completely undermined by a string of costly live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition game. While he orchestrated the half-court offense well, giving away possessions negated his offensive creation. Poor closeouts on the perimeter also allowed easy counter-attacks.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 36.1m -20.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 7
S Coby White 31.2m
24
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

A barrage of timely perimeter shots offset a few defensive lapses, keeping his net impact in the green. Exceptional hustle metrics indicate he was constantly fighting through screens and recovering loose balls. Pushing the pace in transition consistently caught the defense backpedaling.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +6.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 31.2m -17.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 7
21
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.6

Dominating the interior matchups allowed him to anchor the team's overall performance. High-value defensive positioning and rim deterrence fueled a stellar defensive rating. Even with a few missed perimeter looks, his gravity in the post dictated the opponent's defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 30.9m -17.7
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Isaac Okoro 22.1m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Negative impact stemmed from offensive inefficiency and an inability to generate defensive stops. Poor shot execution from the perimeter dragged down his overall value despite a modest hustle contribution. His point-of-attack defense failed to disrupt the opponent's rhythm in crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 22.1m -12.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 18.4m
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.5

Elite shot selection and high-activity hustle plays drove a massive positive impact. Capitalizing on nearly every touch, his efficiency from deep stretched the floor and created driving lanes for teammates. Deflections and loose ball recoveries further amplified his value during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 18.4m -10.4
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Perimeter struggles severely limited his offensive gravity and dragged his overall score into the red. Forcing contested looks late in the shot clock resulted in empty possessions that stalled the offense. Despite active hands in the passing lanes, the lack of floor spacing proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 26.7m -15.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 23.5m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Passive offensive decision-making allowed the defense to sag off and clog the passing lanes. Passing up open perimeter looks stagnated the half-court sets and minimized his playmaking threat. A lack of point-of-attack resistance further compounded his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 23.5m -13.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zach Collins 17.7m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities to generate a steady positive impact. Solid verticality at the rim altered several driving attempts, boosting his defensive metrics. His disciplined positioning kept him out of foul trouble while maintaining interior pressure.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 17.7m -10.1
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 16.2m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

An inability to finish through contact at the rim tanked his offensive efficiency. He frequently drove into crowded paint areas, leading to blocked shots and disrupted offensive flow. The resulting transition opportunities for the opponent heavily outweighed his minor hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 16.2m -9.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 11.7m
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Timely weak-side rotations and disciplined rim protection kept his impact slightly positive despite minimal offensive touches. He maximized his short stint by securing contested defensive boards to end opponent possessions. Staying vertical on drives prevented cheap fouls and stabilized the second unit's defense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 11.7m -6.8
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

A brief, uneventful stint was defined by offensive invisibility and a failure to establish post position. While he provided a few solid defensive rotations, his complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor. The inability to stretch the floor allowed his defender to freely roam.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 5.6m -3.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0