GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 39.3m
13
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+7.8

Wreaked absolute havoc in the passing lanes to generate a massive hustle and defensive impact. His relentless ball pressure created a string of live-ball turnovers that ignited the transition offense. Managed the game perfectly on the other end, making quick decisions and avoiding negative plays.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +8.5
Defense +7.9
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 39.3m -23.1
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Johnson 37.1m
20
pts
9
reb
12
ast
Impact
-3.3

High usage and playmaking numbers hid a sloppy performance riddled with careless passing in traffic. Several telegraphed reads led directly to opponent fast breaks, erasing the value of his half-court creation. Forced the issue too often in isolation, leading to low-quality attempts that bailed out the defense.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 37.1m -21.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.4m
31
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.3

A shocking perimeter explosion completely warped the opponent's defensive game plan. By consistently popping to the arc and hitting high-value outside shots, he dragged the opposing rim protector out of the paint. This floor-stretching dynamic, paired with solid interior defense, drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +28.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 36.4m -21.3
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Trae Young 31.4m
9
pts
0
reb
10
ast
Impact
-19.0

Disastrous shot selection and a total inability to contain dribble penetration destroyed his net value. Settled for deep, contested pull-ups early in the clock, essentially handing the ball back to the opponent. The opposing backcourt relentlessly hunted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on nearly every trip down the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 31.4m -18.6
Impact -19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Offensive hesitancy and poor shot quality severely limited his effectiveness. Passed up open catch-and-shoot looks only to drive into heavy traffic, resulting in blocked shots and killed possessions. While his point-of-attack defense was passable, the offensive dead ends dragged his overall score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 19.3m -11.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
25
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Aggressive perimeter hunting provided a crucial scoring punch, even if the efficiency wavered at times. His willingness to take and make contested corner threes punished defensive over-helps. Chipped in just enough on the hustle charts to ensure his high-volume shooting translated into a net positive.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 29.9m -17.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Perimeter defensive lapses and poor closeouts allowed opponents to consistently find a rhythm from deep. While he managed to knock down a few outside shots of his own, it wasn't enough to cover the points he surrendered. A tendency to get caught ball-watching off the ball severely hampered his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 24.2m -14.2
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 16.7m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Maximized a short stint by aggressively cutting to the basket and finishing with authority. Refused to settle for jumpers, instead finding soft spots in the zone for high-percentage looks at the rim. This hyper-efficient offensive execution provided a noticeable jolt to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 16.7m -9.9
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Struggled to make an imprint during a very limited rotational stint. Opponents quickly identified him on the perimeter and attacked his closeouts, neutralizing the value of his lone made basket.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 4.7m -2.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely saw the floor during a brief cameo appearance. A quick defensive miscommunication during his lone minute of action resulted in a minor negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -158.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 38.2m
15
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite point-of-attack defense completely salvaged a rough shooting night. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and generated deflections that kept the opponent out of rhythm. Those extra possessions and defensive stops easily outweighed the clunky offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.6
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 38.2m -22.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 37.7m
34
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.1

Massive scoring volume completely masked how much value he gave back on the other end of the floor. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding away the points he generated. Pounding the rock also led to a stagnant offense and a handful of costly live-ball turnovers.

Shooting
FG 15/29 (51.7%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 37.7m -22.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 36.6m
14
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.9

Playmaking and hustle metrics looked solid, but poor spacing and forced perimeter shots neutralized his offensive value. Opponents sagged off him down the stretch, daring him to shoot and bogging down the half-court offense. A few costly defensive gambles on the perimeter further eroded his net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 36.6m -21.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
36
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

An absolute offensive masterclass defined by impeccable shot selection and spacing. Punished drop coverage relentlessly from the perimeter while using his gravity to open up driving lanes for teammates. The sheer volume of high-efficiency scoring completely overwhelmed the defense and drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 17/18 (94.4%)
Advanced
TS% 78.5%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +32.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 29.8m -17.6
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mohamed Diawara 16.2m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to find a rhythm offensively, forcing contested looks that dragged down his overall impact. Despite the poor shot selection, he managed to stay engaged on the defensive end with timely rotations. Ultimately, the empty offensive trips and missed assignments in transition kept him just below water.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 16.2m -9.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Provided a steadying two-way presence by taking only high-value shots within the flow of the offense. His defensive versatility stood out during a crucial second-half stretch where he seamlessly switched across three positions. Kept mistakes to an absolute minimum, ensuring a positive net contribution.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 23.5m -13.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.9

Impact cratered due to forced, contested jumpers early in the shot clock that fueled opponent transition attacks. Unable to find a rhythm, his offensive struggles bled into his defensive focus, resulting in missed rotations. The combination of empty possessions and defensive lapses made him a severe liability during his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 21.2m -12.5
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyler Kolek 18.6m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.6

A disastrous stint defined by predictable playmaking and an inability to stay in front of his man. Opposing guards blew past him at the point of attack, forcing the defense into constant rotation. Compounded the defensive bleeding with rushed, out-of-rhythm floaters that essentially acted as empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.0
Raw total -3.7
Avg player in 18.6m -10.9
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.5

Completely controlled the paint through sheer physicality and elite rim protection. Altered countless shots at the basket and dominated the offensive glass, generating high-value second-chance opportunities. His vertical spacing and defensive anchoring dictated the terms of engagement whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +10.4
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 18.2m -10.8
Impact +15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0