GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Jalen Williams 32.1m
14
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics defined this gritty performance, as he consistently generated second-chance opportunities through sheer physical effort. Even with a mediocre shooting night, his relentless ball denial and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +9.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 32.1m -17.2
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 29.4m
29
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.7

Total domination in the pick-and-pop game allowed him to torch the primary coverage and shatter his recent scoring averages. Combined with elite rim deterrence that completely walled off the paint, his two-way masterclass resulted in a massive positive swing for the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.7
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 29.4m -15.7
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 6
27
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.6

Surgical precision in isolation sets drove a stratospheric box score impact, as he systematically dismantled individual defenders with his mid-range package. His hyper-efficient shot selection and disciplined closeouts ensured the team dominated every minute he was on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 79.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 29.0m -15.5
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 23.0m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Complete offensive invisibility torpedoed his net score, as opposing defenses aggressively sagged off him to clog the driving lanes. He remained a menace at the point of attack with high-level screen navigation, but his reluctance to shoot punished the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 23.0m -12.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.0

Fumbled catches in traffic and rushed attempts around the basket severely hampered his offensive utility. Although he maintained strong drop-coverage discipline to protect the rim, his inability to finish easy dump-off passes stalled the offense during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 19.6m -10.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.9

Suffocating on-ball defense against opposing guards fueled a highly positive net rating. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and capitalized on the resulting chaos by making smart, decisive cuts to the rim.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 25.6m -13.6
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.9

Extending a red-hot streak of shooting efficiency, his flawless shot selection punished defensive rotations all night. He paired this offensive clinic with disciplined weak-side help defense, resulting in a massive double-digit boost to the team's net margin.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 23.0m -12.4
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

High-motor loose ball recoveries and decisive drives into the paint underscored a stellar rotational performance. He consistently beat retreating defenders in semi-transition, utilizing excellent body control to generate high-percentage looks and boost his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +5.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 20.1m -10.8
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 15.6m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Disruptive perimeter ball pressure and timely deflections set the tone for a highly effective bench shift. By converting transition opportunities created by his own defensive havoc, he provided a steadying two-way presence that elevated the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 15.6m -8.3
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Providing a quick burst of physical wing defense, he helped stabilize the rotation during a brief first-half stint. His willingness to battle for positioning in the paint outweighed a couple of forced perimeter jumpers, yielding a modest positive return.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 7.1m -3.8
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Capitalizing on rare rotational minutes, he executed flawlessly as a roll man to secure quick interior buckets. His crisp screen-setting and attentive drop coverage maximized his brief time on the floor, driving a highly efficient per-minute impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 5.5m -3.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 5.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

A failure to establish any perimeter rhythm during a brief stint left his offensive impact completely barren. He provided adequate defensive positioning, but his inability to punish late closeouts negated his primary value as a floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -72.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 5.2m -2.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Rushed perimeter attempts derailed his brief appearance, as he failed to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities. Without any secondary playmaking to fall back on, his empty offensive possessions quickly bled value and resulted in a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 4.7m -2.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 36.4m
28
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.7

Relentless rim pressure and elite point-of-attack defense fueled a highly productive two-way performance. By consistently beating his primary defender off the dribble, he forced defensive collapses that elevated both his individual box metrics and the team's overall transition game.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.3
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 36.4m -19.5
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 5
S VJ Edgecombe 33.9m
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-16.8

Disastrous shot selection completely derailed his overall impact, as he forced contested looks to break out of a scoring slump. Even though he generated extra possessions through relentless loose-ball recoveries, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips resulted in a team-worst net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 33.9m -18.1
Impact -16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 29.2m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.8

A sharp decline in offensive aggression defined this outing, as he completely abandoned his interior game to rely solely on the perimeter. While his defensive rotations and hustle metrics remained positive, the massive drop-off in scoring volume dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 29.2m -15.7
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dominick Barlow 25.4m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Snapping a five-game streak of highly efficient shooting, his inability to convert quality looks severely limited his floor value. He managed to salvage some utility through active closeouts and high-energy hustle plays, but the offensive dead weight ultimately resulted in a heavily negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 25.4m -13.6
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andre Drummond 17.6m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Poor positional awareness in the paint allowed opponents to exploit the interior, driving his defensive impact into the negative. Without his usual rebounding dominance to offset the lack of offensive touch, his minutes became a significant liability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 17.6m -9.5
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Adem Bona 28.4m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.0

Explosive vertical spacing and elite rim protection defined a breakout performance that vastly exceeded his recent production. He anchored the paint with perfectly timed weak-side rotations, translating high-energy defensive stops directly into efficient lob finishes on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 82.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 28.4m -15.2
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
Jared McCain 23.3m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Despite highly efficient shot-making that boosted his individual box metrics, his minutes coincided with massive opponent runs that tanked his overall net score. He struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, allowing shooters to find rhythm during critical stretches of the second half.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 23.3m -12.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Defensive lapses on the perimeter and a sudden regression in shooting efficiency dragged his overall impact into the red. After a strong stretch of games, he settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts, stalling the offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -44.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 22.4m -12.0
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A sudden surge in perimeter confidence kept the floor spaced, largely offsetting some minor defensive miscommunications. While his catch-and-shoot gravity provided a necessary offensive spark, his inability to secure contested long rebounds prevented his impact score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 19.8m -10.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Making the most of a brief rotational cameo, he provided immediate stability with decisive offensive execution. His flawless conversion on a quick post-up opportunity showcased his readiness, yielding a solid positive return in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0