GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 33.7m
6
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-14.2

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc completely derailed the offense during his minutes. The inability to break down his primary defender or hit open jumpers led to stalled possessions and a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 33.7m -20.0
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 27.9m
24
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Torrid perimeter shooting drove a high box score rating, but defensive lapses at the point of attack severely limited his overall net impact. Getting blown by on straight-line drives gave back much of the value he created with his scoring outburst.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 27.9m -16.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 27.6m
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

High-volume inefficiency from the mid-range suppressed what was otherwise a productive scoring night. The sheer number of empty possessions outweighed his solid box score contributions, pulling his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 27.6m -16.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 25.8m
20
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.9

An aggressive scoring mentality completely shattered his recent passive streak, driving an elite overall impact. Combining hyper-efficient shot-making with highly engaged hustle metrics made him the stabilizing force on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.9%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 25.8m -15.3
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luke Kornet 25.7m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.2

Flawless execution as a roll man and dominant rim protection fueled a massive positive rating. His ability to alter shots without fouling anchored the interior defense while maintaining perfect offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.1
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 25.7m -15.3
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

A shocking lack of offensive assertiveness neutralized his usual dominance, dragging his net score into the negative. Opponents successfully pushed him off his spots, minimizing his rim gravity and limiting his overall influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 23.1m -13.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
25
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Relentless downhill attacking and hot outside shooting generated a massive offensive boost. While his off-ball defense remains a weak point, the sheer volume of high-quality looks he created easily kept his impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.0
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 22.2m -13.2
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Brick-laying from the perimeter ruined the team's spacing and tanked his overall rating. Despite playing excellent positional defense, his inability to punish closeouts made him a severe offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 22.1m -13.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Dylan Harper 20.3m
4
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+12.4

Defensive dominance defined this performance, as his elite point-of-attack pressure completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. He sacrificed his own scoring volume to act as a pure facilitator and lockdown stopper, resulting in a stellar overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +12.0
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 20.3m -12.1
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Smart connective passing and solid defensive positioning salvaged a brief, shot-less appearance. He kept the ball moving and executed the defensive scheme perfectly during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +1.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Converted his lone opportunity around the basket to provide a marginal positive impact. Played his exact role as a depth big without forcing any unnecessary actions.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Drilled a catch-and-shoot three to maximize his brief time on the floor. Provided exactly the kind of instant spacing required from an end-of-bench specialist.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Kept the offense organized and converted his single attempt during a short cameo. Avoided the careless mistakes that often plague low-minute guards.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Made the most of a quick garbage-time run by finishing his only look efficiently. Stayed within the flow of the offense to secure a slightly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
33
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.8

A masterclass in shot creation drove a massive box score rating, as he consistently broke down defenders in isolation. He maintained his elite scoring rhythm while avoiding the empty possessions that plague high-usage guards, cementing a stellar overall impact.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 35.5m -21.2
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Williams 31.5m
17
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite solid defensive metrics and active hustle, inefficient volume shooting dragged down his overall impact. Forcing looks against set defenses negated the value of his playmaking, resulting in a negative net score.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 31.5m -18.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 27.1m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

A sharp drop in scoring efficiency cratered his offensive value, as he struggled to finish through contact in the paint. High hustle and defensive ratings show he remained engaged as a rim deterrent, but the missed bunnies ultimately sank his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 27.1m -16.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 26.4m
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Sizzling perimeter shot-making provided a massive offensive boost, but his defensive impact uncharacteristically slipped into the negative. Getting caught on screens and losing his primary assignment offset the value of his hot hand from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.0
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 26.4m -15.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

A surprisingly negative total impact stems from defensive lapses and likely giving up second-chance points, completely overshadowing his work on the glass. His inability to anchor the drop coverage effectively allowed opponents to score at will during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 25.6m -15.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Brick-laying from the perimeter severely damaged floor spacing and tanked his overall rating. Failing to punish defensive rotations with open corner threes made him an offensive liability despite adequate point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 25.2m -15.0
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 18.9m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offensive invisibility and a negative box metric ruined his stint on the floor. Even his trademark hustle plays and deflections couldn't compensate for the spacing issues his reluctance to shoot created.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 18.9m -11.2
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Isaiah Joe 15.8m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Elite shot selection and timely defensive rotations fueled a highly positive rating in limited minutes. Punishing closeouts with quick-trigger shooting perfectly complemented his active off-ball defense.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 15.8m -9.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Flawless finishing around the basket snapped a brutal shooting slump and drove a massive spike in his impact score. Combining perfect offensive execution with rugged positional defense made this his most effective shift of the recent stretch.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 13.2m -7.9
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Extreme passivity on offense limited his overall influence, snapping a strong run of efficient scoring games. While his defensive rotations were crisp, the sheer lack of offensive volume kept his net impact slightly below water.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 11.1m -6.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Capitalized perfectly on a brief garbage-time cameo by drilling his only look from deep. The limited sample size kept his impact modest, but he executed his exact role as a floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 3.2m -1.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

A missed shot and general lack of involvement kept his impact hovering right around neutral. He showed decent energy on the margins but didn't tilt the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Failed to register any meaningful offensive actions during a quick stint, resulting in a slightly negative net score. Poor defensive positioning in transition further dragged down his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0