GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 39.7m
33
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+13.0

Continued his dominant offensive tear by seamlessly blending high-level shot creation with suffocating length on the other end (+6.5 Def). He consistently exploited mismatches in the mid-post, forcing the defense into impossible rotation decisions. This two-way masterclass anchored the lineup and dictated the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 14/21 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +30.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +39.1
Avg player in 39.7m -26.1
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Anthony Davis 35.9m
31
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+24.7

Absolute dominance in the paint drove a staggering positive rating, fueled by elite rim protection (+9.2 Def) and relentless motor (+7.9 Hustle). He completely erased opposing drives, turning blocked shots and contested finishes into immediate transition opportunities. His sheer physical imposition in the restricted area broke the opponent's offensive will.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +31.3
Hustle +7.8
Defense +9.2
Raw total +48.3
Avg player in 35.9m -23.6
Impact +24.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 32.7m
11
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.6

A surprising offensive breakout was completely overshadowed by a disastrous overall net rating (-10.6 Total) driven by poor game management. While he found his own shot, his minutes coincided with massive opponent runs due to disorganized transition defense and late rotations. The scoring spike was essentially empty calories in the context of the team's structural breakdowns while he ran the point.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 32.7m -21.5
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 31.6m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Despite providing rugged perimeter defense (+4.2 Def) and solid hustle, his overall impact slipped into the red due to a cooling offensive rhythm. He couldn't replicate the high-end scoring volume from his recent stretch, often stalling out half-court possessions with forced drives. Opponents sagged off him to clog the paint, disrupting the team's broader offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 31.6m -20.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 84.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden Hardy 27.8m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

High-energy hustle plays (+4.4) and active hands couldn't prevent a negative overall impact as his offensive efficiency regressed. He struggled to find the explosive scoring rhythm that defined his previous five outings, settling for contested perimeter looks late in the clock. This lack of reliable shot creation allowed the defense to key in on primary actions and stall the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 27.8m -18.3
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Martin 24.9m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Gritty, high-motor defensive possessions (+6.7 Def) and timely loose-ball recoveries (+4.0 Hustle) firmly established his positive value. He thrived as a disruptive force in the passing lanes, translating deflections into easy transition offense. This blue-collar effort perfectly complemented the primary scorers and stabilized the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 24.9m -16.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A sharp decline in offensive involvement tanked his overall impact, snapping a dominant stretch of highly efficient interior scoring. While he remained active as a rim deterrent (+2.6 Def), he was completely neutralized as a lob threat in the pick-and-roll. The inability to punish switches allowed the opposition to aggressively trap the ball handlers without fear of vertical punishment.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 17.2m -11.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Failed to generate his usual offensive punch, leading to a severely negative stint (-7.0 Total) where the second unit stagnated. Without his typical downhill aggression, the offense devolved into perimeter passing with zero rim pressure. His inability to bend the defense ultimately resulted in empty possessions and negative momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -69.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 15.2m -9.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided a steadying offensive presence with timely perimeter shot-making that kept the spacing intact. He effectively managed the tempo during his brief shifts, punishing defensive lapses without forcing the issue. This controlled, efficient execution yielded a modest but crucial positive impact for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 15.1m -9.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 37.3m
31
pts
7
reb
14
ast
Impact
+9.1

Sustained his torrid offensive streak by punishing drop coverages and generating high-quality looks out of the pick-and-roll. His defensive engagement (+5.3 Def) was equally crucial, fighting over screens to prevent easy perimeter triggers. This dual-threat performance kept the offense humming during critical momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +25.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 37.3m -24.5
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 36.4m
29
pts
7
reb
14
ast
Impact
+14.6

Elite two-way execution drove a massive positive rating, anchored by exceptional positional defense (+9.1 Def) and constant high-post orchestration. He systematically picked apart defensive coverages by blending his usual scoring efficiency with relentless hustle plays (+4.8) to extend possessions. His ability to dictate the tempo in the half-court completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +24.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +38.5
Avg player in 36.4m -23.9
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Spencer Jones 26.1m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Provided a surprising offensive spark compared to his recent baseline, but hidden negative plays dragged his overall impact into the red. While his on-ball defensive metrics (+5.5) looked sturdy, poor rotational timing and spacing issues likely disrupted the broader team flow. He struggled to translate individual stops into positive transition momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 26.1m -17.2
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Peyton Watson 24.4m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-19.7

A disastrous stint where offensive hesitation and blanking from the field cratered his overall value (-19.7 Total). He completely abandoned the downhill attacking style that fueled his recent scoring streak, settling for heavily contested perimeter looks. Without his usual rim pressure, his minutes became a massive sinkhole for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.7
Avg player in 24.4m -16.0
Impact -19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cameron Johnson 23.9m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Strong defensive rotations (+4.3 Def) couldn't salvage a negative overall rating driven by extreme offensive passivity. He completely lost the aggressive scoring rhythm established over his previous five games, floating on the perimeter instead of attacking closeouts. This lack of weak-side gravity allowed the defense to freely overload against primary actions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 23.9m -15.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

A catch-and-shoot explosion completely flipped his recent slump and stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. Capitalizing on elite shot selection from the corners, he punished late closeouts to generate a massive positive swing. This sudden perimeter gravity opened up vital driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 29.2m -19.1
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 26.5m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Continued his streak of highly efficient finishing around the basket, though his overall impact hovered just below neutral. Despite solid point-of-attack defense (+2.8 Def), minor spacing redundancies in the half-court sets limited the unit's ceiling while he was on the floor. His relentless cutting provided a reliable safety valve, even if it didn't fully translate to a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 26.5m -17.3
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Efficient interior finishing wasn't enough to offset the defensive liabilities (-0.1 Def) he presented in drop coverage. Opponents consistently targeted his lack of lateral mobility in the pick-and-roll, neutralizing his offensive contributions. He was ultimately played off the floor during quicker, transition-heavy stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 14.1m -9.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump with confident perimeter strokes, but defensive lapses (-1.9 Def) erased those gains. He consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts and struggled to navigate off-ball screens. The scoring burst was a welcome sight, yet his inability to string together stops kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +50.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 12.2m -8.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

A completely invisible stint where a lack of aggression and zero hustle plays bled value in just under six minutes. He failed to initiate any meaningful offensive sets, looking hesitant against perimeter pressure. This passive stretch forced the coaching staff to pull him quickly to stop the bleeding.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -44.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 5.8m -3.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Hemorrhaged value in a brief four-minute cameo due to disjointed offensive execution. He failed to organize the floor or provide any meaningful defensive resistance, allowing the opposition to dictate the tempo. The lack of positive hustle metrics highlights a low-energy stint that hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 4.0m -2.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1