GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
39
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+18.0

Carved up the defense with surgical precision, utilizing his elite deceleration to generate high-quality looks in the painted area. His impact was equally devastating on the other end, where his active hands and positional awareness (+9.1 Def) consistently disrupted passing lanes. This masterclass in two-way control drove the highest net rating on the floor.

Shooting
FG 15/24 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +30.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +41.7
Avg player in 35.9m -23.7
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 33.7m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Punished defensive sagging with lethal, high-efficiency catch-and-shoot execution from the corners. Beyond the floor-spacing, his screen navigation and point-of-attack discipline (+6.5 Def) suffocated opposing guards. Playing a nearly mistake-free brand of basketball allowed him to maximize his value within the flow of the offense.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 33.7m -22.2
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 32.9m
20
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.9

Wreaked absolute havoc on the defensive end (+10.3 Def), blowing up dribble hand-offs and generating live-ball turnovers that fueled the transition attack. His relentless motor (+7.3 Hustle) on loose balls set a physical tone that the opposition simply could not match. The resulting two-way dominance easily overcame a slightly inefficient mid-range shooting night.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +7.3
Defense +10.3
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 32.9m -21.8
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 30.5m
24
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.8

Completely dictated the terms of engagement by pairing elite rim protection (+7.0 Def) with hyper-efficient inside-out scoring. He neutralized the opponent's primary interior threats while simultaneously dragging their bigs out to the three-point line. This flawless two-way execution resulted in a dominant, game-altering net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 30.5m -20.2
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 22.6m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Offensive momentum routinely died in his hands due to a barrage of clanked perimeter jumpers and forced drives into traffic. Even his typically stout on-ball defense (+3.1 Def) couldn't compensate for the transition opportunities he handed the opponent via empty possessions. This bricklaying effectively short-circuited the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +41.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 22.6m -14.8
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Alex Caruso 24.0m
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Provided an absolute masterclass in role-player efficiency, capitalizing on every backdoor cut and spot-up opportunity presented to him. His trademark defensive menace (+7.5 Def) was on full display as he locked down the perimeter and generated crucial deflections. Flawless shot selection and relentless energy coalesced into a massive double-digit impact score.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 24.0m -15.8
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

Gritty point-of-attack defense (+4.0 Def) and solid hustle plays kept his head above water during a rough shooting night. He repeatedly settled for contested floaters rather than pressuring the rim, which bogged down the half-court spacing. Ultimately, his high-effort defensive plays perfectly canceled out his offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 23.3m -15.3
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Short-circuited multiple possessions by forcing heavily contested shots early in the shot clock, completely abandoning his normally reliable efficiency. This poor shot selection fueled opponent transition opportunities that his mediocre defensive resistance (+0.9 Def) could not stop. A stark departure from his recent form that severely hampered the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 11.3m -7.4
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Found a few soft spots in the interior defense for easy finishes, but struggled to establish any real physical presence in the paint. His inability to deter drivers or secure contested rebounds allowed the opposition to maintain their offensive rhythm. Consequently, his minutes resulted in a slight negative drag despite the tidy shooting line.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 10.8m -7.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 10.2m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Failed to provide his usual gravitational pull on the perimeter, rushing his few attempts and letting the offense stagnate. Without his shot falling, his defensive limitations (-0.5 Def) became glaringly apparent as opponents easily drove past his closeouts. A brief but highly damaging stint that forced the coaching staff to look elsewhere for spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 10.2m -6.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Logged a brief, cardio-heavy stint that failed to leave any meaningful imprint on the offensive end. While he chipped in with a couple of solid defensive rotations (+1.1 Def), he was largely a bystander during a quick negative run by the opposition. The lack of tangible production relegated him to a minor negative score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 4.8m -3.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
ATL Atlanta Hawks
30
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.6

High-volume gunning yielded explosive scoring stretches, though the sheer number of contested looks capped his overall offensive efficiency. He made up for the erratic shot selection by hounding ball-handlers and blowing up passing lanes (+5.9 Def). That two-way aggression kept his net impact narrowly in the green despite the streaky execution.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 6/14 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 39.9m -26.4
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 72.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 35.0m
26
pts
14
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.1

Anchored the interior with phenomenal rim deterrence (+7.0 Def) while simultaneously stretching the floor to pull opposing bigs out of the paint. His sudden burst of perimeter confidence completely altered the pick-and-pop geometry for Atlanta. Controlling the painted area on both ends ultimately drove his positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 35.0m -23.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 34.5m
13
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.3

Elite point-of-attack harassment and relentless activity on 50/50 balls (+5.3 Hustle) kept him highly engaged defensively. However, a lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint, stalling out several offensive possessions. Those spacing issues ultimately overshadowed a gritty, high-effort defensive shift.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 34.5m -22.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Vít Krejčí 34.2m
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Despite solid perimeter shot-making, his overall impact sank into the red due to defensive lapses during critical stretches. He struggled to stay attached to shooters off the ball, bleeding points that negated his offensive output. The heavy reliance on outside jumpers also limited his ability to pressure the rim and draw fouls.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 34.2m -22.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Perimeter spacing was a major plus, but his inability to secure the defensive glass or generate interior pressure dragged down his overall rating. Opponents repeatedly targeted his slender frame in the post, neutralizing the value of his spot-up shooting. A lack of playmaking connective tissue further limited his half-court utility.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -54.4
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 22.7m -15.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Luke Kennard 30.7m
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.6

Spot-up gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, but he was relentlessly hunted in pick-and-roll actions on the other end. The defensive bleeding was severe enough to completely wipe out his offensive contributions. Consequently, his minutes featured massive opponent runs that tanked his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 30.7m -20.3
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Asa Newell 20.4m
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.3

Missed rotations and poor closeout angles (-0.4 Def) made him a clear liability during his floor time. While he showed flashes of pick-and-pop potential, his inability to anchor the weak side or secure loose balls allowed second-chance points to pile up. The resulting defensive crater drove one of the worst net ratings of the night.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 20.4m -13.5
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Capitalized beautifully on limited touches by punishing defensive drop coverage with decisive perimeter shot-making. His crisp rotations and active hands (+2.3 Def) ensured he wasn't giving those points right back on the other end. A highly efficient, low-mistake cameo that provided quality stabilization for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 12.2m -8.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Proved that scoring isn't required to swing a game by providing a massive spark of rim protection and positional discipline (+4.0 Def) off the bench. He consistently walled off the baseline and altered interior layups during a crucial second-half stint. This pure defensive utility perfectly masked his complete lack of offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 10.2m -6.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0