GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 38.3m
30
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

High-volume scoring masked a surprisingly porous defensive showing (+0.8 Def) where he was consistently beaten on back-door cuts. The lack of secondary rim protection erased the value of his perimeter shot-making, leaving him with a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +22.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 38.3m -26.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keyonte George 35.3m
31
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.5

Kept the defense entirely off-balance with a masterful blend of pull-up shooting and aggressive rim pressure. His relentless pursuit of loose balls (+6.5 Hustle) generated crucial extra possessions that firmly tilted the game's momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 35.3m -24.6
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jusuf Nurkić 31.8m
16
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.6

Dominated the interior by executing flawless drop coverage that deterred drives and forced contested floaters (+8.7 Def). His physical screen-setting and quick processing out of the high post served as the engine for Utah's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 31.8m -22.2
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 21.3m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Operated primarily as a floor-spacer, though his overall volume dipped as the offense flowed away from his side of the court. A few missed defensive assignments in transition kept his net impact from matching his solid underlying efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +45.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 21.3m -14.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ace Bailey 11.2m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A complete offensive disappearing act compared to his recent form, as he failed to establish deep post position or find open passing lanes. While he remained engaged defensively (+3.9 Def), his inability to command defensive attention stalled out the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 11.2m -7.8
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
20
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Hollow scoring volume failed to translate into winning basketball, largely due to a tendency to stall the offense with isolation-heavy possessions. He bled value on the other end by consistently dying on screens, forcing teammates into scramble situations that yielded open looks.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 33.0m -23.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-11.0

Impact cratered due to a disastrous string of live-ball turnovers that directly fueled opponent fast breaks. Even with active hands on the perimeter (+4.1 Def), his reckless decision-making in traffic sabotaged the offense and led to a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 29.4m -20.4
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
Kevin Love 16.2m
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

Punished the opposing second unit by stretching the floor and executing flawless outlet passes that ignited the transition game. His veteran positioning on the defensive glass (+4.7 Def) completely neutralized the opponent's second-chance opportunities during his stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 16.2m -11.2
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

An abrupt halt to his recent scoring tear, as physical interior defense completely pushed him out of his preferred spots. He managed to salvage some value through disciplined rim contests (+4.3 Def), but the lack of offensive gravity hindered the lineups he anchored.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 10.7m -7.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Looked entirely disconnected from the offensive flow during his brief stint, failing to generate any meaningful rim pressure. His passive approach allowed defenders to cheat off him, which bogged down spacing and led to a steep negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 8.7m -6.0
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Made a quick, positive imprint on the game entirely through weak-side defensive rotations (+2.5 Def). By deterring two separate drives at the rim without committing a foul, he provided a brief but valuable stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 4.0m -2.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 37.1m
29
pts
5
reb
17
ast
Impact
+5.5

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense drove a massive positive impact, systematically dismantling the opposing pick-and-roll coverage. His defensive engagement (+7.6 Def) at the point of attack was equally crucial, preventing penetration and allowing Detroit to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.6
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 37.1m -25.8
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Tobias Harris 27.3m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

Perimeter shot selection dragged down an otherwise productive scoring night, as he settled for contested looks late in the clock. While his base production was solid, defensive rotations on the weak side were a step slow, bleeding points that neutralized his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 27.3m -19.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 25.8m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Elite spacing gravity opened up the floor, but his underlying impact was surprisingly muted by poor closeouts that led to secondary drives. He compensated with exceptional hustle tracking down long rebounds (+5.1 Hustle), keeping his overall net rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 25.8m -17.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 21.5m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

A sharp drop-off from his recent dominant stretch, primarily driven by poor pick-and-roll positioning that allowed easy downhill angles for the opponent. His inability to anchor the paint defensively (-1.1 Def) and a lack of offensive volume compounded to create a massive negative swing when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 21.5m -15.0
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ausar Thompson 15.7m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Despite active hands generating strong defensive metrics (+3.0 Def), his overall impact slipped into the red. A string of sloppy live-ball turnovers in transition completely erased the value of his high-percentage looks around the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -41.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 15.7m -10.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Offensive spacing suffered significantly when he was on the floor due to hesitant perimeter shooting and forced interior attempts. Despite putting up stiff resistance in post-up matchups (+4.0 Def), his inability to finish plays or protect the ball resulted in a cratered net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 26.4m -18.4
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Thrived in his role as an energy forward, consistently blowing up dribble hand-offs to generate transition opportunities (+5.0 Def). His timely cuts along the baseline punished ball-watching defenders and kept the offensive flow moving seamlessly.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 19.9m -13.9
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 19.6m
11
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.7

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls (+6.1 Hustle) set the tone for the second unit during a crucial second-quarter stretch. He paired this high-motor play with disciplined shot selection, taking only what the defense conceded to generate a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +6.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 19.6m -13.7
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Breaking out of a severe scoring slump, his aggressive downhill attacks finally yielded positive results at the rim. However, his overall impact remained marginal due to late defensive rotations and a tendency to over-help, which surrendered open corner looks.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 19.3m -13.4
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 14.0m
11
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.7

Instant offensive injection characterized by decisive, in-rhythm perimeter strikes that punished drop coverages. He maximized his brief stint by maintaining defensive discipline (+3.1 Def) and avoiding the reckless drives that sometimes plague his game.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 14.0m -9.8
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Struggled to find his typical offensive rhythm, forcing several contested midrange pull-ups that dragged down his efficiency. He salvaged his floor time by locking down the point of attack (+5.7 Def), heavily contesting perimeter attempts to keep his overall impact positive.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 9.4m -6.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 4.0m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Completely abandoned his usual scoring role to function as a pure defensive disruptor during a brief but highly effective stint. He blew up two consecutive pick-and-rolls with hard hedges (+5.8 Def), sparking a quick momentum-shifting run despite missing his own looks.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 4.0m -2.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0