GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 34.3m
15
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-9.6

A stark drop in finishing efficiency and poor perimeter shot selection severely punished his overall rating. Despite generating solid hustle metrics and keeping the offense moving with his passing, his inability to convert his own looks bogged down half-court possessions. Opposing guards sagged off him on the perimeter, daring him to take outside shots that ultimately disrupted the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 34.3m -16.3
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S De'Aaron Fox 32.2m
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

Reckless drives into traffic and a barrage of missed perimeter jumpers severely damaged his net impact. He failed to utilize his elite speed effectively, often settling for low-percentage looks early in the shot clock. The lack of connective playmaking meant his offensive struggles directly translated into empty possessions for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 44.8%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 32.2m -15.2
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 29.5m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.9

A severe regression in shot quality and perimeter efficiency completely tanked his overall rating. He repeatedly forced contested mid-range pull-ups and failed to create any secondary offense for his teammates. The lack of hustle plays or off-ball movement further compounded the damage of his wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 29.5m -13.9
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
26
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.6

Generational rim protection and an overwhelming physical presence fueled a massive positive impact score. He completely deterred opponents from entering the paint, single-handedly warping the opposition's shot chart. Offensively, his ability to draw double teams and secure second-chance opportunities easily offset a slightly inefficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +8.9
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 27.3m -12.9
Impact +17.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 26.9m
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Offensive invisibility and clanked perimeter looks heavily dragged down his net rating. He struggled to create separation against younger, faster wings, resulting in a string of heavily contested misses. While his veteran defensive positioning salvaged some value, it could not mask the sheer lack of scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 26.9m -12.7
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A sharp decline in offensive assertiveness limited his overall effectiveness, dragging his net score into the negative. He passed up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities, which bogged down the team's perimeter spacing. Even with decent hustle on the glass, his inability to stretch the floor consistently hampered the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 24.2m -11.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kornet 23.1m
10
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.1

Flawless shot selection and superb positional defense resulted in a remarkably high positive impact during his minutes. He capitalized on every interior touch, continuing a highly efficient streak of finishing around the basket. His ability to alter shots at the rim without fouling anchored the second-unit defense perfectly.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 23.1m -10.9
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 26.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

A low-usage but highly efficient offensive approach yielded a slightly positive net rating. He took exactly what the defense gave him, avoiding the forced drives that have occasionally plagued his shot profile. Solid weak-side defensive rotations ensured he remained a net positive despite a significant drop in his usual scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 17.8m -8.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Dylan Harper 17.4m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Impact dipped into the red as he struggled to maintain his recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring. While he showed flashes of strong point-of-attack defense, forced drives into heavy traffic resulted in empty offensive trips. The inability to cleanly initiate the offense ultimately outweighed his individual scoring flashes.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 17.4m -8.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Failed to make a dent during a brief rotation stint, posting negative value due to empty offensive possessions. Rushed a pair of contested looks that led directly to opponent transition opportunities. His lack of physical presence on the perimeter made him a target on defensive switches.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 7.3m -3.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
10
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.6

A severe drop-off in offensive efficiency tanked his overall rating, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers late in the shot clock. While active hands generated impressive defensive and hustle metrics, it wasn't enough to offset the sheer volume of wasted possessions. The inability to find his spots completely derailed the team's half-court flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 35.3m -16.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Darius Garland 31.4m
15
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+1.0

Elite playmaking and surprisingly stout defensive metrics kept his overall impact in the green despite a rough shooting night. He struggled to find his typical scoring rhythm, often settling for contested perimeter looks that dragged down his efficiency. However, his ability to consistently collapse the defense and kick out to shooters salvaged his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 31.4m -14.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Evan Mobley 28.6m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

Elite rim protection and consistent interior finishing anchored a highly productive two-way performance. He sustained a multi-game streak of high-percentage looks by punishing mismatches in the paint. Even with a couple of missed perimeter jumpers, his defensive presence firmly controlled the frontcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 28.6m -13.6
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 28.1m
27
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.5

Absolute dominance in the restricted area drove a massive positive impact score, continuing a multi-game streak of highly efficient finishing. He overwhelmed opposing bigs on the offensive glass to generate crucial second-chance opportunities. Defensively, his sheer physical presence in drop coverage completely stifled interior drives.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 56.1%
USG% 37.7%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 28.1m -13.4
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dean Wade 24.6m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

A sharp uptick in perimeter efficiency fueled a solid positive impact, breaking him out of a recent offensive slump. Active rotations and timely closeouts generated strong hustle and defensive metrics. He capitalized on his spot-up opportunities without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 24.6m -11.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Merrill 25.8m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Impact cratered due to a barrage of missed perimeter shots that consistently stalled offensive momentum. He failed to break out of an ongoing shooting slump, rushing looks against tight closeouts. While he showed decent effort fighting through screens, his inability to stretch the floor rendered his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 25.8m -12.2
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and excellent positional rebounding drove a highly effective two-way performance. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and contested shots without fouling, anchoring the wing defense. Offensively, he let the game come to him by taking only high-value spot-up opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +8.0
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 24.0m -11.4
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylon Tyson 21.5m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.1

Exceptional shot selection from beyond the arc and lockdown perimeter defense fueled a massive positive impact in limited minutes. He capitalized perfectly on defensive breakdowns, punishing the opposition with timely catch-and-shoot daggers. His ability to stay in front of his man without fouling heavily boosted his defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 21.5m -10.2
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

Generated a surprisingly strong positive impact entirely through connective passing and positional rebounding rather than scoring. He expertly managed the pace of the second unit, finding cutters and securing long rebounds to ignite transition breaks. Despite failing to convert from the floor, his defensive positioning kept his overall value firmly in the black.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 15.3m -7.2
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Provided a quick spark of positive value by confidently hunting perimeter shots during a brief stint on the floor. He capitalized on sagging coverage to knock down timely jumpers, exceeding his usual offensive output. The short leash meant his defensive and hustle contributions were minimal, but the scoring burst was highly efficient.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 5.3m -2.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0