GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 36.9m
13
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Defensive dominance defined this performance, as his elite length and anticipation disrupted passing lanes and blew up pick-and-roll actions. He supplemented his defensive masterclass with relentless activity on 50/50 balls, generating extra possessions. Even with a pedestrian offensive output, his sheer physical imposition dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +9.6
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 36.9m -18.2
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 34.1m
17
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brutal perimeter shooting night severely capped his offensive value, as he repeatedly clanked contested pull-ups early in the shot clock. While he remained engaged defensively and fought through screens, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. His insistence on forcing isolation plays against set defenses actively hurt the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.8%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 34.1m -16.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.1

Impact completely cratered due to a disastrous shooting performance and poor decision-making at the point of attack. He repeatedly forced heavily contested floaters and deep threes, short-circuiting the offense and fueling opponent fast breaks. The inability to orchestrate the offense or hit open looks made him a massive liability in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 24.7m -12.3
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Capitalized on defensive mismatches by stretching the floor and making quick, decisive reads in the half-court. His mobility allowed him to switch effectively onto smaller players on the perimeter, bolstering his defensive rating. The fluidity he brought as a connector piece in the high post was instrumental to the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 23.3m -11.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ochai Agbaji 20.1m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Broke out of a severe offensive slump by aggressively attacking closeouts rather than settling for contested jumpers. His off-ball cutting finally found synergy with the primary playmakers, leading to high-percentage looks at the rim. While his defensive impact was muted, the sudden injection of efficient secondary scoring provided a crucial lift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 20.1m -10.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 28.9m
19
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.3

Provided a massive, unexpected offensive spark by confidently stepping into perimeter jumpers and punishing drop coverage. His ability to consistently break down his primary defender created cascading advantages for the entire unit. Despite modest defensive metrics, his aggressive shot creation was the engine that kept the offense humming during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 28.9m -14.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

A stark departure from his recent hyper-efficient interior finishing, as he was repeatedly swallowed up by rim protectors on forced post-ups. He managed to salvage some value through sheer effort on the glass and solid positional defense. However, the offensive black hole he created in the paint ultimately dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 25.0m -12.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
10
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.0

An absolute menace in the margins, generating immense value through elite hustle and suffocating perimeter defense. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow by fighting through screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs. The sheer volume of extra possessions he created via deflections and loose ball recoveries made him the most impactful role player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.0
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 23.7m -11.7
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 15.4m
15
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.7

Snapped out of a brutal shooting slump by relocating brilliantly off the ball and hunting high-quality catch-and-shoot opportunities. His gravity as a spacer opened up driving lanes for his teammates, magnifying his offensive impact far beyond his own touches. Disciplined closeouts on the other end ensured he wasn't giving back his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 15.4m -7.5
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Mo Bamba 4.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Maximized a very brief stint by immediately altering shots around the rim and deterring drivers. His sheer wingspan created a momentary no-fly zone in the paint, spiking his defensive metrics. He played strictly within his role, setting screens and rolling without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -107.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 4.3m -2.2
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Managed to stay slightly positive in garbage time by converting his lone offensive opportunity. However, his defensive positioning was suspect, as he was easily bypassed on straight-line drives during his brief appearance. The lack of hustle stats reflects a largely passive few minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 3.7m -1.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 38.0m
23
pts
15
reb
10
ast
Impact
+12.9

A dominant two-way showing driven by immense defensive versatility and high-leverage shot creation. He consistently collapsed the defense to generate high-quality looks for teammates, while his elite defensive rating stemmed from shutting down the paint and contesting everything at the rim. His ability to dictate the physical tempo of the game completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +9.0
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 38.0m -18.8
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Anthony Black 32.2m
27
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Relentless energy in transition and loose-ball recoveries kept his head above water despite some defensive lapses. He forced the issue offensively with aggressive downhill drives, though a few too many forced attempts at the rim limited his overall efficiency. Ultimately, his sheer motor compensated for the structural mistakes in his half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 32.2m -16.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Shot selection dragged down his overall value, as settling for contested above-the-break threes derailed offensive momentum. While he provided a solid physical presence inside with strong hustle metrics, the offensive inefficiency was too costly. The stark drop-off from his normally highly efficient interior finishing left a noticeable void in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 31.7m -15.7
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 29.9m
18
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

Despite a rough shooting night where perimeter jumpers consistently rimmed out, his overall impact remained solidly positive due to secondary playmaking and defensive stability. He forced opposing guards into difficult looks on the perimeter, padding his defensive metrics. The sheer volume of offensive possessions he anchored kept the team afloat even when his own shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 29.9m -14.7
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Tyus Jones 28.1m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

A surprisingly negative overall impact driven by defensive breakdowns at the point of attack. Although he bounced back from a recent scoreless stretch by converting his few offensive chances, he struggled to navigate screens, allowing opposing guards too much dribble penetration. The defensive bleed completely erased the value of his steady offensive orchestration.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 28.1m -13.9
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Struggled to find the rhythm that had defined his recent stretch of efficient scoring, forcing contested mid-range looks that stalled possessions. His defensive rotations were a half-step slow, leading to open corner closeouts that the opponent exploited. The combination of offensive hesitation and defensive tardiness resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 26.6m -13.2
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.6

An uptick in offensive aggression didn't translate to efficiency, as poor shot selection from the perimeter dragged his net score into the red. He showed flashes of solid on-ball defense, but too many empty offensive possessions neutralized that effort. His inability to finish through contact on drives was a glaring weakness in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 19.6m -9.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 15.8m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Anchored the interior defense during his brief stint, deterring drives and altering shots at the rim to spike his defensive rating. He didn't demand the ball offensively, instead generating value through hard screens and occupying the dunker spot. His disciplined rim protection was the defining feature of a highly efficient rotational shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 15.8m -7.7
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jamal Cain 12.1m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Elite hustle metrics from crashing the glass and diving for loose balls couldn't entirely mask a complete offensive disappearing act. Coming off a red-hot shooting streak, he was completely neutralized by physical wing defenders who denied him catching angles. The defensive lapses in transition ultimately pushed his impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 12.1m -5.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 5.5m
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Bleeding value during a short stint, his overall impact cratered due to poor spacing and offensive invisibility. He failed to register any hustle stats, merely floating on the perimeter without actively cutting or screening. The lack of physical engagement made him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 5.5m -2.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Logged less than a minute of floor time in a purely situational substitution. There was simply not enough court time to register any meaningful statistical or physical impact.

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