GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 37.7m
24
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
+0.8

Heavy transition creation and interior finishing kept his head above water despite a barrage of missed perimeter looks. His +5.8 defensive rating highlights his versatility in switching across multiple positions. The poor outside shooting capped his ceiling, but his playmaking out of the short roll salvaged his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 37.7m -22.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 35.5m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Suffered a significant negative impact (-5.8) because his utter lack of offensive volume allowed the defense to trap his teammates. While his point-of-attack defense was stellar (+8.4), his refusal to look at the basket stalled the half-court offense. He essentially operated as a zero-gravity decoy on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 35.5m -21.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 34.8m
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

An ill-advised obsession with perimeter jumpers dragged his overall impact into the negative. He provided excellent rim protection and generated second-chance opportunities, but gave those gains right back with empty offensive possessions from beyond the arc. Abandoning his interior strengths for outside shots proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 34.8m -20.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Trae Young 32.0m
30
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.1

Lethal perimeter shot-making and deep drop-coverage exploitation fueled a highly productive offensive shift. He punished under-screens with immediate pull-up triples, forcing the defense into constant rotation. Surprisingly engaged defensive tracking (+2.1) ensured he didn't bleed points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 32.0m -18.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Extreme passivity on offense resulted in a severe -9.5 impact crater. He floated on the perimeter without pressuring the rim or drawing defensive attention, effectively forcing his team to play four-on-five. The lack of assertiveness completely negated his passable defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -35.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 20.4m -12.0
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Stagnant offensive decision-making and forced drives caused a sharp drop from his recent scoring tear. Even though he provided solid perimeter resistance (+5.2 defense), his inability to finish in traffic resulted in empty possessions. The offense bogged down whenever he tried to initiate isolation sets.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 31.6m -18.7
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 65.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite solid point-of-attack defense (+3.5), an inability to generate rim pressure capped his overall effectiveness (-4.2). He settled for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts, stalling the offensive flow during his minutes. The lack of downhill aggression allowed the defense to rest.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 21.7m -12.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Asa Newell 12.2m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Failed to establish any physical presence in the paint during a highly ineffective rotation stint. He was easily pushed off his spots, leading to a negative overall impact (-4.1) despite not actively hurting the team with turnovers. The game simply moved too fast for him to leave a footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 12.2m -7.2
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A complete lack of field goal attempts highlights a stint where he was entirely bypassed in the offensive flow. Drawing fouls in the paint salvaged his scoring, but his negative defensive rating (-0.3) showed he struggled with defensive rotations. He was mostly a spectator during his brief rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.9%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 11.4m -6.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

A disastrous micro-stint where he immediately surrendered defensive leverage and bricked his only look. Racking up a -7.6 impact in under three minutes requires a rapid succession of blown assignments and negative plays. He was quickly pulled after failing to execute the defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -4.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -6.0
Avg player in 2.8m -1.6
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 32.9m
25
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.9

Relentless downhill attacking salvaged an otherwise erratic perimeter shooting performance. His offensive aggression forced defensive collapses, keeping his base impact extremely high (+19.1) even with a high volume of missed triples. He consistently found success punishing closeouts rather than settling for contested jumpers.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 32.9m -19.4
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 32.6m
16
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Interior rim protection and vertical spacing drove a major spike in his overall effectiveness. The +8.7 defensive score highlights his ability to alter shots in the paint and secure contested defensive boards. Stepping out to hit a pair of trail threes added a crucial layer to the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 32.6m -19.3
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Andrew Wiggins 32.4m
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.0

A dominant +8.4 defensive rating anchored his positive impact despite a completely cold night from beyond the arc. He relied heavily on slashing and mid-range isolation to maintain his scoring volume above recent averages. His ability to lock down the wing neutralized his perimeter shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.4
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 32.4m -19.1
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Pelle Larsson 29.7m
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.4

Elite shot selection and off-ball movement fueled a massive +16.4 overall impact, continuing a highly efficient five-game stretch. His +6.7 hustle rating indicates relentless energy in loose-ball situations that created extra possessions. He capitalized on defensive rotations to generate high-value perimeter looks rather than forcing contested drives.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 29.7m -17.5
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 29.3m
6
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.4

An inability to generate scoring gravity severely dragged down his overall impact (-9.4) despite respectable point-of-attack defense. Opponents sagged off him completely due to his perimeter hesitation, clogging driving lanes for teammates. His playmaking couldn't overcome the negative spacing he created.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 29.3m -17.4
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite defensive disruption (+9.3) completely masked a highly inefficient scoring night. He forced multiple dead-ball situations and blew up screening actions to keep his overall impact firmly in the green. His offensive struggles were mitigated by sheer physical exertion on the defensive glass and in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.3
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 27.7m -16.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.3

A disastrous shot profile featuring heavily contested jumpers tanked his overall value (-6.3). While his length provided some defensive utility (+4.9), the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions killed team momentum. He repeatedly forced isolation looks early in the shot clock instead of moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.6%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 21.2m -12.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Dru Smith 18.7m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Gritty backcourt defense and high-motor rotations drove a positive rating despite a brutal shooting line. His +4.7 hustle score reflects a willingness to dive for loose balls and extend possessions. He essentially functioned as a defensive specialist, ignoring his broken jumper to focus on blowing up pick-and-rolls.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +7.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 18.7m -11.0
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

High-quality spot-up shooting in limited minutes provided a noticeable spark off the bench. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by strictly taking in-rhythm perimeter attempts. Solid defensive positioning (+3.0) ensured he wasn't targeted on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 15.6m -9.2
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0