GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Kyle Filipowski 34.8m
25
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.8

Sustained offensive efficiency and excellent spatial awareness in the frontcourt drove a dominant overall impact. He consistently punished defensive rotations with high-IQ cuts and finishing, extending his streak of highly productive shooting nights while anchoring the rebounding battle.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 34.8m -21.4
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Keyonte George 34.0m
24
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

Extraordinary hustle metrics and lethal perimeter shot-making fueled a highly productive shift that tilted the game. He dictated the tempo by hunting high-value looks from deep and creating second-chance opportunities through sheer effort, making him a constant thorn in the defense's side.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +7.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 34.0m -20.8
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 81.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 29.0m
17
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

A perfectly neutral impact score reflects an outing where efficient shot-making was entirely offset by defensive lapses or costly turnovers. While he found his spots offensively, his inability to string together stops on the other end resulted in a wash for the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 29.0m -17.8
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kevin Love 28.6m
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.6

Disastrous shot selection from the perimeter completely torpedoed his impact score, as he repeatedly short-circuited offensive possessions with early-clock bricks. Opponents clearly targeted his lack of lateral mobility in pick-and-roll coverage, compounding the damage of his empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 28.6m -17.6
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 22.2m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

A brutal night of forcing contested perimeter looks threatened to tank his value, but he salvaged a positive impact through sheer defensive effort. Chasing shooters off the line and making high-motor hustle plays compensated for the offensive regression from his recent hot streak.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 22.2m -13.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.5

An absolute revelation on both ends of the floor, combining lockdown defensive versatility with a massive, unexpected scoring surge. He capitalized on every breakdown in the opponent's coverage, finishing plays with authority to generate an elite overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.7
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 26.7m -16.5
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-10.5

Playmaking volume was completely overshadowed by a catastrophic impact rating, likely the result of live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. His inability to manage the game's tempo or contain dribble penetration allowed the opposition to go on massive runs while he was orchestrating the offense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 26.1m -16.1
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Relying heavily on trips to the foul line couldn't mask the damage of poor shot selection from the field. The inability to generate clean looks in half-court sets bogged down the offensive flow, pushing his overall impact into negative territory despite the double-digit scoring.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 15.2m -9.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.6

Forcing contested perimeter shots completely derailed his rhythm and resulted in a steep negative impact score. The stark regression from his usual scoring output left the second unit devoid of its primary weapon, while poor defensive rotations compounded his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 14.6m -9.0
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A stark lack of aggression and limited playing time prevented him from establishing any sort of rhythm. He largely floated through his brief rotation, failing to pressure the rim or replicate the offensive gravity he usually provides.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 8.7m -5.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Santi Aldama 34.4m
37
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.5

Perimeter shot-making was the undeniable engine behind a massive overall impact rating, as he consistently punished drop coverage from deep. By generating high-value looks and converting at a blistering rate from beyond the arc, he single-handedly tilted the offensive math in Memphis's favor.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +26.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 34.4m -21.0
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cam Spencer 32.2m
11
pts
3
reb
13
ast
Impact
-7.2

Playmaking volume masked a disastrous overall impact driven by defensive bleeding and costly transition-starting turnovers. Even though he facilitated the offense well, his inability to contain his matchup on the other end gave back significantly more value than he created.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 32.2m -19.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 31.8m
12
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Relentless point-of-attack defense and high-motor hustle plays were the true catalysts for his positive overall rating. While his scoring saw a noticeable bump above his season average, it was his ability to blow up opposing perimeter actions and secure loose balls that defined his highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.6
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 31.8m -19.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
21
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite anchoring the interior with high-level defensive metrics, hidden costs like live-ball turnovers and defensive fouls dragged his overall impact slightly into the red. The scoring volume was there, but empty possessions and giving points back in transition undermined his otherwise stellar rim protection.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 30.2m -18.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S GG Jackson 29.5m
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

High-value shot selection and sustained offensive rhythm fueled a highly efficient night that anchored his positive impact. He complemented the offensive execution with solid defensive positioning to keep the overall rating firmly in the black. His ability to maintain his recent scoring surge without forcing bad looks was the defining trait of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.1%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 29.5m -18.2
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jock Landale 20.6m
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Exploiting mismatches in the paint allowed him to surge well past his usual scoring average and post a robust positive impact. He provided a massive spark as a roll man, generating high-percentage looks at the rim while avoiding the empty possessions that plague heavy-usage bigs.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 20.6m -12.7
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts suppressed his offensive value and dragged his overall rating into the red. While his defensive rotations remained fundamentally sound, the lack of floor-spacing gravity and empty offensive trips ultimately hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 19.5m -11.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

A sharp drop in offensive aggression and overall usage caused his impact score to slip into the negative, breaking a strong streak of highly efficient performances. He floated on the perimeter too often, failing to pressure the defense or generate the secondary actions needed to justify his floor time.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 18.8m -11.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Javon Small 12.4m
0
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.5

Erasing his own scoring gravity entirely allowed defenders to play completely off him and clog the passing lanes, resulting in a steep negative impact score. Even though he generated looks for others, his refusal to pressure the rim and poor shot execution completely derailed the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 12.4m -7.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.2

Elite rim deterrence in a highly concentrated burst of minutes defined this incredibly impactful rotation. He completely shut off the paint during his brief stint, using his length to alter shots and secure extra possessions without requiring any offensive touches to be effective.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 10.0m -6.1
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting cameo appearance at the end of a quarter. There was not enough court time to register any meaningful statistical impact or alter the game's momentum.

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 0.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.3m -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0