GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 32.2m
34
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+21.8

Absolute mastery of transition offense and mismatch hunting fueled a staggering net impact. He consistently bullied smaller defenders in the mid-post while providing elite weak-side rim protection. This combination of hyper-efficient scoring and defensive anchoring completely broke the opponent's game plan.

Shooting
FG 15/22 (68.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +27.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +40.5
Avg player in 32.2m -18.7
Impact +21.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
11
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

Pushing the tempo resulted in forced, low-percentage looks early in the shot clock that acted as momentum killers. While his energy levels and hustle metrics were commendable, the erratic shot selection consistently bailed out the defense. This offensive inefficiency severely punished his unit's overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 31.2m -18.0
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Bricklaying from beyond the arc allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates. Despite showing solid instincts on the defensive end, his inability to stretch the floor crippled the half-court offense. The resulting spacing issues were the primary driver behind a steep negative total impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 28.3m -16.5
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 28.3m
11
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+9.5

Suffocating perimeter defense completely short-circuited the opponent's primary offensive actions. He turned deflections into immediate transition opportunities, orchestrating the fast break with pinpoint precision. Avoiding outside shots entirely kept his efficiency pristine and maximized his playmaking value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 28.3m -16.5
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 27.0m
17
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.2

Excellent screen-setting and short-roll decision-making consistently compromised the opposing pick-and-roll coverage. He punished late rotations with decisive finishing and smart kick-outs to shooters. This offensive fluidity, combined with sturdy interior defense, generated a highly positive two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 27.0m -15.7
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 26.9m
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.5

Constant off-ball movement warped the defensive shell, creating massive driving lanes for his teammates. He capitalized on hard closeouts by making the extra pass, keeping the offensive machine humming. This elite spacing gravity and smart connective playmaking drove a sturdy positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 26.9m -15.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.4

Stellar point-of-attack defense was ultimately undone by a frigid perimeter shooting performance. Defenders routinely sagged off him to clog the paint, stalling out multiple half-court possessions. The inability to punish the defense from deep dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 25.6m -14.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Pick-and-pop mastery forced opposing bigs out of the paint, fundamentally altering the geometry of the floor. He punished switches by shooting cleanly over smaller defenders, ensuring high-quality looks on key possessions. This vertical and horizontal spacing generated a solid positive rating during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg +54.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 17.3m -10.1
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 15.8m
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Relentless positioning around the basket secured crucial extra possessions and stabilized the interior defense. He capitalized on dump-off passes and offensive putbacks, requiring zero plays to be run for him. This low-maintenance, high-efficiency dirty work provided a massive spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 15.8m -9.1
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A rushed offensive approach during a brief rotation stint led to an empty possession that killed momentum. He struggled to seamlessly integrate into the offensive flow, looking hesitant against defensive pressure. This lack of rhythm resulted in a quick negative dent in the plus-minus.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Immediate defensive intensity disrupted the opponent's rhythm the moment he stepped on the floor. He used his length to contest passing lanes and alter shots at the rim during a crucial late-game sequence. This pure defensive energy secured a positive net rating despite zero offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 3.7m -2.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 33.1m
30
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.2

Relentless downhill attacking shattered the primary defensive shell, driving a massive positive impact. He paired this offensive engine with suffocating point-of-attack defense that disrupted the opponent's initiation. This two-way dominance dictated the tempo for the entire night.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 33.1m -19.3
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Julius Randle 31.5m
19
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Physicality in the painted area drove a strong positive impact, buoyed by relentless activity on loose balls. He punished smaller defenders on switches, creating high-quality looks from beyond the arc. Defensive rebounding and timely closeouts solidified his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 31.5m -18.2
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 28.4m
6
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Elite rim deterrence anchored the defense, but offensive spacing issues severely capped his overall net rating. Opponents sagged off him in the half-court, clogging driving lanes and stalling the offensive flow. His screen-setting and vertical gravity kept him barely in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 28.4m -16.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.9

Tremendous effort plays and floor-burn hustle were undone by erratic shot selection from the perimeter. Clanking multiple contested jumpers fueled long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. His playmaking vision was sharp, but the missed scoring opportunities dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 25.6m -15.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 21.6m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Highly efficient perimeter shot-making was entirely negated by costly rotational lapses that tanked his overall impact. The positive individual defensive metrics mask a stretch where his unit bled transition points. A low-usage offensive role prevented him from counteracting the negative lineup swings.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 21.6m -12.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Naz Reid 21.9m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.4

An absolute cratering of offensive value stemmed directly from forcing contested outside shots. Opponents actively dared him to shoot, and his inability to convert from deep completely derailed the second unit's spacing. Even solid activity on the glass couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 21.9m -12.6
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Jaylen Clark 15.6m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Defensive tenacity was entirely overshadowed by an inability to generate any offensive gravity. Missing multiple wide-open corner looks allowed the defense to aggressively double team the primary ball handlers. This offensive black hole effect tanked his overall rating during a brief rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -43.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 15.6m -9.0
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Mike Conley 14.5m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

A completely passive offensive stint allowed the opposing defense to rest and pack the paint. Failing to pressure the rim or hit perimeter shots resulted in a stagnant half-court offense while he ran the point. The lack of offensive initiation heavily outweighed his steady positional defense.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -57.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 14.5m -8.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 12.6m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.2

Shot-hunting without rhythm destroyed the team's offensive flow and led to a catastrophic net impact. Forcing off-balance jumpers early in the shot clock essentially acted as live-ball turnovers. This reckless shot selection dug a massive hole during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -9.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total -7.9
Avg player in 12.6m -7.3
Impact -15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Operating strictly as a cardio guy during garbage time, he offered zero offensive threat. While he maintained defensive principles and grabbed loose balls, the lack of any scoring gravity kept his impact slightly below water. The opposing unit easily ignored him to trap the ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 7.9m -4.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Injected immediate pace and decisive decision-making into a late-game rotation. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to generate clean looks and keep the offense humming. This quick burst of efficient creation provided a solid positive bump in limited action.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 7.9m -4.4
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Instant offense off the bench completely tilted the floor during a crucial late-game stretch. He punished defensive drop coverage with confident, in-rhythm perimeter strikes. This sudden scoring burst maximized his short stint and drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 7.9m -4.5
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Capitalized on scrambled defensive rotations to find easy finishing angles around the basket. While his rim protection was slightly suspect, his aggressive cutting kept the opposing frontcourt on their heels. The efficient finishing easily outpaced any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 7.9m -4.6
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 3.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A brief, ineffective cameo was marred by a lack of foot speed against younger, quicker wings. Opponents immediately targeted him in isolation, forcing defensive rotations that led to open looks. He couldn't generate any offensive advantage to counter the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1