GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 42.5m
23
pts
25
reb
10
ast
Impact
+26.0

An absolutely monstrous performance defined by relentless glass-cleaning and elite defensive anchoring. He completely dominated the interior matchups, creating endless second-chance opportunities while suffocating opponent drives. The sheer physical imposition of his game drove one of the highest impact scores of the season.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.5m
Offense +29.6
Hustle +6.9
Defense +14.6
Raw total +51.1
Avg player in 42.5m -25.1
Impact +26.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Brandon Ingram 39.5m
26
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.5

A disastrous showing from beyond the arc completely negated a high-volume scoring surge. Missing all eight three-point attempts stalled the offense and allowed the defense to pack the paint without consequence. The heavy reliance on contested mid-range jumpers ultimately dragged his overall efficiency into the red.

Shooting
FG 12/26 (46.2%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 39.5m -23.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
27
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.2

Blistering perimeter shooting doubled his recent scoring average, yet hidden errors kept his overall impact hovering around neutral. The heavy offensive load likely came with a high turnover cost or defensive breakdowns that gave points right back. His ability to stretch the floor was crucial, but the margins were erased by sloppy execution in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 38.0m -22.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S RJ Barrett 23.8m
12
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.0

Poor finishing in traffic and a noticeable drop in aggressive rim-pressure severely hampered his effectiveness. The offense bogged down during his isolation sets, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition attacks. A failure to generate his usual scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him consistently.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 23.8m -14.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ochai Agbaji 19.9m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Capitalizing on limited touches, he provided a massive and unexpected scoring boost that stabilized the bench unit. Excellent shot selection masked some underlying defensive struggles that occasionally compromised the scheme. His ability to finish efficiently around the basket was a welcome deviation from his recent slump.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 19.9m -11.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Lethal off-ball movement and crisp perimeter shooting punished defensive rotations all night. He stepped into a larger offensive role seamlessly, capitalizing on kick-outs to double his usual scoring output. Solid positional defense ensured that his offensive explosion translated directly to a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 33.2m -19.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 29.0m
8
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.0

Extraordinary hustle metrics highlight a relentless motor, but erratic decision-making and missed shots tanked his overall value. The playmaking volume couldn't compensate for the offensive possessions wasted on low-percentage perimeter looks. Opponents successfully dared him to shoot, neutralizing his ability to collapse the defense.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +11.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 29.0m -17.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.2

Exceptional defensive positioning and high-energy rim runs drove a massively positive impact in limited action. He weaponized his mobility against slower bigs, creating mismatches that the offense exploited repeatedly. The combination of interior finishing and disruptive help-defense completely altered the complexion of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +9.5
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 21.8m -12.8
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Gradey Dick 14.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

A failure to connect from deep neutralized his primary utility as a floor spacer. The lack of gravity allowed defenders to clog the driving lanes for his teammates, stifling the offensive flow. Without his shot falling, his minimal contributions in the hustle and defensive categories couldn't salvage his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 14.9m -8.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely crossed the scorer's table before the final horn sounded, offering no opportunity to impact the game's trajectory. Relegated entirely to garbage-time duty, his brief appearance yielded a negligible negative rating. The microscopic sample size prevented any meaningful evaluation of his form.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Stepped onto the floor strictly for the closing sequence of the game, grabbing a single loose ball before time expired. Did not have the chance to influence the offensive or defensive schemes in any substantial way. Served entirely in a veteran mop-up role to close out the contest.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.8m -0.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Inserted solely to burn the final seconds off the clock, preventing any statistical accumulation. His recent steady efficiency was kept on ice for this matchup. The fractional minutes played resulted in an inconsequential dip in his overall rating.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 41.1m
39
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

Incredible scoring gravity forced the defense to bend constantly, though the sheer volume of 18 missed shots slightly muted his overall efficiency. He compensated for the erratic shooting stretches with surprisingly robust defensive engagement and hustle plays that sustained possessions. The constant threat of his perimeter release dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/30 (40.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 37.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.1m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 41.1m -24.3
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
19
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.2

Despite decent scoring volume, his overall impact plunged into the negatives due to severe inefficiency from the perimeter. Missing all four three-point attempts and struggling to convert inside dragged down his offensive value. The lack of defensive playmaking couldn't salvage a rough shooting night that stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 37.7m -22.2
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Draymond Green 33.3m
21
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.2

A massive uncharacteristic scoring surge defined his night, punishing defenses that dared to leave him open from deep. His two-way impact was buoyed by elite defensive rotations and high-level hustle metrics that disrupted the opponent's rhythm. Hitting half of his eight perimeter attempts completely altered the spacing dynamic for the offense.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 33.3m -19.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moses Moody 29.0m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

An absolute cratering of offensive production tanked his overall rating, as he failed to capitalize on open looks. While his high-end hustle and defensive metrics show he remained engaged without the ball, the sheer volume of empty possessions proved costly. The stark drop-off from his recent scoring tear left a noticeable void in the half-court attack.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 29.0m -17.2
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Quinten Post 18.1m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Perfect perimeter shooting in limited minutes wasn't enough to keep his overall impact out of the red. Defensive liabilities and a failure to protect the rim allowed opponents to exploit his matchups consistently. The brief offensive spark was overshadowed by the structural damage done on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 18.1m -10.7
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Will Richard 35.1m
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Phenomenal defensive execution completely overshadowed a spotty perimeter shooting performance. He doubled his usual scoring output through sheer opportunistic cutting, but it was his suffocating on-ball pressure that truly swung the game. Generating extra possessions via elite hustle metrics solidified his status as a difference-maker.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +5.5
Defense +13.9
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 35.1m -20.6
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

A noticeable dip in scoring aggression compared to recent outings left the secondary unit searching for answers. While his shot selection was sound, hidden negatives like live-ball turnovers and poor rotational timing dragged his overall impact down. He struggled to dictate the pace against physical perimeter defenders.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 27.9m -16.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 16.9m
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Veteran positioning and elite defensive awareness drove a highly positive impact despite a modest offensive workload. He anchored the interior effectively, deterring drives and forcing low-percentage looks around the basket. Taking only what the defense gave him ensured he never forced the issue or wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 16.9m -10.0
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Buddy Hield 14.3m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Barely registering a blip on the offensive radar, his inability to command defensive attention crippled floor spacing. The underlying metrics suggest unforced errors and poor positioning severely punished the team during his shifts. A complete lack of volume from deep rendered his primary skill set useless.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 14.3m -8.4
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

A sharp decline in offensive involvement limited his ability to swing the game's momentum. He still provided his trademark point-of-attack pressure, but the lack of scoring punch rendered him a slight negative overall. The opponent successfully neutralized his cutting lanes, forcing him into a passive role.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -56.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 11.6m -6.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2