GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
27
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.4

Lethal perimeter shot-making and decisive off-ball movement powered a towering +20.8 Box score. He paired this offensive explosion with superb length on the glass and disciplined closeouts, resulting in an elite +9.8 defensive mark. His ability to hit contested jumpers over smaller defenders repeatedly broke the opponent's defensive schemes.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 36.1m -19.7
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 35.7m
15
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.9

Suffocating rim protection and elite switchability onto perimeter guards engineered a massive +13.1 defensive impact. He feasted offensively by converting high-percentage lobs and putbacks, punishing the defense for leaving him on the roll. This two-way dominance anchored the frontcourt and dictated the physical terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +13.1
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 35.7m -19.4
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 32.3m
23
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

A barrage of perimeter shot-making fueled his offensive value, as he generated all of his field goals from beyond the arc. However, his inability to penetrate or finish inside the paint made him a one-dimensional threat, capping his overall impact at a neutral +0.1. Excellent hustle metrics (+5.0) kept him from slipping into the negative during cold shooting stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 7/14 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 32.3m -17.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Terance Mann 28.1m
4
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.9

A complete inability to generate offense cratered his overall impact (-8.9) despite respectable defensive metrics. By failing to convert a single field goal attempt, he allowed the defense to aggressively double-team his teammates without penalty. His offensive hesitation consistently short-circuited half-court sets during his extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 28.1m -15.3
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 24.9m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Relentless activity on the margins (+5.6 Hustle) and sturdy interior defense kept him relevant despite a slightly negative overall total. He struggled to finish cleanly inside the arc, which capped his offensive ceiling even as he broke out of a recent scoring slump. His willingness to sacrifice his body on screens and loose balls partially offset those finishing woes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 24.9m -13.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Danny Wolf 19.9m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.1

Complete offensive passivity and glaring defensive liabilities (-1.4 Def) culminated in a disastrous -11.1 overall impact. He shrank from the moment, failing to register a single point while repeatedly getting outmuscled on defensive rotations. This sudden disappearance completely derailed the second unit's effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.4
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 19.9m -10.8
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 18.8m
13
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Tunnel vision and forced mid-range jumpers dragged his overall impact deeply into the red (-4.5 Total). While he produced raw scoring numbers, the sheer volume of contested looks he required disrupted the team's offensive rhythm. A lack of defensive resistance (-0.2 Def) meant he gave back whatever value he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg -50.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 18.8m -10.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Drake Powell 17.3m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

A total lack of offensive aggression and poor shot selection when he did pull the trigger resulted in a heavy -7.5 impact penalty. He failed to bend the defense or create advantages, turning his minutes into an offensive slog for the entire unit. This sharp regression from his recent scoring averages left a massive void in the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -53.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 17.3m -9.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Nolan Traore 14.6m
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Blistering perimeter efficiency couldn't mask the underlying structural issues during his minutes, leading to a frustrating -4.6 Total impact. He was frequently targeted in isolation on the defensive end, bleeding points that negated his hot shooting. Despite breaking out of a recent efficiency slump, his inability to contain the point of attack proved fatal.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -72.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 14.6m -8.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Ill-advised attempts to stretch the floor resulted in empty possessions that severely damaged his overall impact (-6.2). He failed to leverage his size in the paint, instead settling for perimeter looks that the defense happily conceded. This lack of interior presence allowed the opposition to dominate the paint during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -61.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 12.3m -6.7
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
GSW Golden State Warriors
21
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.2

Elite foul-drawing and interior aggression drove a massive +21.6 Box score, generating high scoring volume on minimal field goal attempts. His physical perimeter defense (+2.5) further bolstered his overall impact. This downhill pressure set a physical tone that the opponent struggled to match.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 31.2m -17.0
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephen Curry 28.6m
27
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.2

Relentless off-ball movement and perimeter gravity warped the opposing defensive scheme, driving a stellar +18.7 Box score. He surprisingly added massive value on the other end (+3.4 Def) by executing precise rotations and fighting through screens. This two-way engagement ensured the team won his minutes decisively.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 28.6m -15.5
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 24.8m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

A stark lack of offensive gravity dragged down his overall impact (-4.3) despite typical positive defensive and hustle metrics. By passing up open looks, he allowed the defense to completely sag off and clog the passing lanes. His reluctance to look at the rim neutralized his playmaking value during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 24.8m -13.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Moses Moody 11.7m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Severe regression in shot selection and execution completely tanked his overall rating following a recent scoring surge. Forcing heavily contested perimeter looks led to empty possessions that stalled the second unit's momentum. Even a slight positive defensive grade couldn't salvage the damage done by his erratic offensive decision-making.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -68.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 11.7m -6.3
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quinten Post 4.9m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Bleeding points on the defensive end (-1.8 Def) in less than five minutes of action torpedoed his brief stint. While he capitalized on his lone perimeter look, his inability to anchor the paint made him unplayable for longer stretches. Opponents immediately targeted his lack of mobility in drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.8
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 4.9m -2.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Tenacious point-of-attack defense and elite rebounding for his position fueled a dominant two-way performance. He broke out of a brutal shooting slump by abandoning contested jumpers in favor of high-percentage drives. His relentless ball pressure (+9.3 Def) consistently disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +9.3
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 23.5m -12.8
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Richard 22.9m
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Disciplined weak-side rotations and active hands translated to a robust +5.0 defensive rating during his extended run. He capitalized on increased offensive responsibility by attacking tilted defenses rather than settling. This balanced, mistake-free basketball stabilized the wing rotation when the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 22.9m -12.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.1

Elite rim protection and flawless pick-and-roll coverage generated a monstrous +11.3 defensive rating that defined his night. He complemented this defensive clinic with opportunistic, highly efficient interior finishing to break out of a recent scoring slump. His vertical spacing and weak-side blocks completely changed the geometry of the frontcourt battle.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +11.3
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 21.9m -12.0
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

A sharp reduction in offensive aggression from his recent high-scoring pace neutered his overall effectiveness. He frequently deferred to teammates rather than attacking closeouts, which stalled the offensive flow during his shifts. Consequently, his minutes bled points (-5.5 Total) despite adequate individual efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 20.0m -10.8
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gui Santos 19.2m
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

An abrupt disappearance on the offensive end completely derailed his recent hot streak, resulting in a brutal -10.2 overall impact. He became entirely passive, passing up open looks and allowing the defense to play five-on-four. Although his hustle metrics remained steady, his offensive invisibility was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 19.2m -10.5
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Buddy Hield 10.9m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.4

Exceptional off-ball defensive awareness (+7.7 Def) and high-energy closeouts unexpectedly drove his massive positive impact. Rather than forcing his broken three-point stroke, he found value by cutting hard and converting efficient looks inside the arc. This sudden commitment to the dirty work completely reversed his recent string of unplayable performances.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 10.9m -5.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Pat Spencer 10.3m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Low-mistake game management and timely connective passing yielded a modest but positive overall impact. He scaled back his own scoring attempts to prioritize offensive flow, taking only high-percentage looks in the paint. His steady, unflashy execution ensured the team didn't lose ground during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 10.3m -5.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Hyper-efficient finishing around the rim kept his offensive metrics afloat, but uncharacteristic defensive lapses (-1.1) dragged his total into the red. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack during his brief rotation. That perimeter leakage negated the value of his excellent shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 10.1m -5.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2