GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 37.8m
11
pts
16
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.4

Total control of the restricted area resulted in a massive defensive rating, completely neutralizing the opponent's interior attack. His relentless effort on the glass ended possessions quickly, preventing second-chance opportunities. By staying strictly within his offensive role and finishing lobs, he maximized his efficiency without wasting possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +7.4
Defense +18.7
Raw total +42.3
Avg player in 37.8m -19.9
Impact +22.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 36.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 37.2m
38
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.2

A masterclass in two-way dominance, his rating skyrocketed thanks to elite shot creation and suffocating perimeter defense. He consistently broke down primary defenders in isolation, generating high-quality looks that broke the opponent's defensive shell. Adding tremendous value on the other end, his point-of-attack pressure completely disrupted the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 15/27 (55.6%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.1%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +5.6
Defense +11.2
Raw total +41.9
Avg player in 37.2m -19.7
Impact +22.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Julius Randle 33.3m
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.3

Bully-ball tactics in the painted area drove his positive rating, as he physically overwhelmed defenders to generate efficient interior offense. The impact could have been much higher, but a string of ill-advised, clanked perimeter jumpers capped his ceiling. Still, his ability to draw double-teams and crash the glass provided a steady baseline of value.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 33.3m -17.6
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.6

High-motor activity and excellent connective passing kept his impact in the green despite a rough shooting night inside the arc. He generated extra possessions through sheer hustle, diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes. Those effort plays, combined with timely perimeter spacing, effectively masked his struggles to finish at the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +8.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 32.2m -17.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mike Conley 29.7m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

A lack of offensive aggression severely limited his influence on the game, leading to a slight negative overall score. While he directed traffic well and maintained solid defensive positioning, his reluctance to attack the paint allowed the defense to sag off him. The offense simply stalled during several of his shifts due to a lack of downhill pressure.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 29.7m -15.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Bones Hyland 25.4m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.6

Poor shot selection defined his stint, with heavily contested perimeter jumpers dragging down his overall efficiency. He managed to provide decent on-ball pressure defensively, which kept his rating from completely bottoming out. Ultimately, his inability to orchestrate within the flow of the offense made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 25.4m -13.5
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Naz Reid 24.9m
8
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Trigger-happy perimeter shooting absolutely cratered his offensive value, as a barrage of missed deep balls short-circuited multiple possessions. He provided solid weak-side rim protection, but it wasn't nearly enough to compensate for the wasted offensive trips. Opponents happily let him shoot, using his misses to ignite their own transition game.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +7.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 24.9m -13.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 13.8m
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite perfect shooting execution, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive lapses on the perimeter. He was frequently caught ball-watching, allowing easy backdoor cuts that resulted in high-percentage looks for the opponent. His low offensive volume simply couldn't outpace the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 13.8m -7.3
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Hemorrhaged value during a disastrous short rotation, largely due to being completely out of sync with the offensive spacing. He failed to record a single hustle play, looking entirely apathetic in transition defense. The unit's rhythm visibly collapsed the moment he stepped onto the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NYK New York Knicks
S Josh Hart 42.5m
12
pts
15
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.4

Despite elite defensive metrics and relentless activity on the glass, his overall impact plunged into the red due to offensive inefficiency. Missing a high volume of shots, many of them forced looks in the paint, neutralized the value of his high-motor defensive rotations. His heavy workload ultimately exposed those scoring struggles during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +6.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 42.5m -22.4
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 23.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Mikal Bridges 37.8m
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Perimeter shooting woes severely damaged his overall rating, as clanking multiple attempts from beyond the arc stalled out several possessions. He failed to generate looks for others, making him a one-dimensional negative on offense. While his point-of-attack defense was steady, it wasn't enough to mask the spacing issues his missed jumpers created.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 37.8m -19.9
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
40
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.7

A dominant offensive showing drove his massive positive impact, as he consistently punished mismatches in the post and stretched the floor. His pristine shot selection generated high-value looks that kept the offense afloat. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the massive value he created on the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 14/24 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +25.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 34.5m -18.3
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tyler Kolek 31.4m
20
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.4

An unexpected scoring explosion fueled a highly positive rating, though the sheer volume of missed shots kept his ceiling in check. His aggressive downhill attacks forced the defense into constant rotation, creating secondary opportunities. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics further cemented his value during this breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +9.1
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 31.4m -16.6
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Impact remained positive entirely due to his elite rim protection and defensive anchoring. Even with his offensive production completely vanishing compared to recent trends, his ability to alter shots in the paint provided steady value. He essentially functioned as a defensive specialist here, neutralizing opponent drives to offset his lack of scoring.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.5
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 26.1m -13.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Shot selection crippled his overall value, as a barrage of forced two-point jumpers completely derailed the team's offensive rhythm. While he found some success spacing the floor from deep, his inability to finish inside the arc was glaring. A lack of defensive resistance only compounded the damage from his inefficient volume.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 29.9m -15.8
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Failed to leave a positive mark during his brief stint, largely due to a lack of defensive presence on the interior. Empty offensive possessions and missed finishes around the rim dragged his rating down. He struggled to establish physical leverage against opposing bigs, rendering his minutes mostly ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 11.8m -6.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Bleeding value in limited action, his rating tanked due to blown defensive assignments and empty offensive trips. Missing his perimeter looks hurt, but his inability to stay in front of his man was the real culprit. He was consistently targeted during his short rotation, leading to a swift negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 10.8m -5.7
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
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Operated strictly on the periphery of the game, resulting in a nearly neutral impact score. A couple of solid defensive rotations kept him from being a liability, but his offensive passivity limited any upside. He essentially ate minutes without shifting the momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -60.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 10.1m -5.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

A brief, cardio-heavy stint yielded a negative rating due to complete invisibility on both ends of the floor. He failed to register a single defensive stop or hustle play to justify his floor time. The game simply moved too fast for him to establish any meaningful positioning.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -137.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 4.5m -2.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Logged less than a minute of action, making it impossible to generate any statistical footprint. His slight negative score is merely statistical noise from a single end-of-quarter possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0