GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 37.7m
26
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.0

Elite point-of-attack defense (+7.5 Def) and relentless hustle (+7.0) drove a highly impactful two-way performance despite poor perimeter shooting. He compensated for his 1-of-8 mark from deep by aggressively attacking the paint and breaking down the defense off the dribble. His ability to generate stops and immediately push the pace defined his dominant floor game.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +7.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 37.7m -23.5
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
36
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.1

An absolutely historic perimeter shooting display (11 made threes) single-handedly warped the opponent's defensive scheme and drove a massive +15.1 impact. He capitalized on every defensive lapse, punishing late closeouts with lethal efficiency. Active hustle (+4.6) and solid positional defense ensured his scoring explosion translated directly to team success.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 11/17 (64.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.3%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +27.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +29.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +37.6
Avg player in 36.2m -22.5
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 26.8m
5
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-22.2

A disastrous shooting performance (1-of-9 from the floor) completely derailed his offensive impact, resulting in a team-worst -22.2 net rating. Defenders sagged off him to clog passing lanes, neutralizing his playmaking efforts and stalling the offense. This sharp regression from his recent efficient scoring streak severely hampered the starting unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.5%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -6.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total -5.6
Avg player in 26.8m -16.6
Impact -22.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Harrison Barnes 25.8m
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.3

A passive offensive approach and an inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to ignore him, bogging down the half-court spacing. Despite decent connective passing, his lack of scoring gravity and minimal hustle (+0.2) led to a severely negative net rating. He struggled to make a tangible imprint on the game during a highly ineffective rotation stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 25.8m -16.1
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
31
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.9

Utterly dominated the interior with near-perfect shooting efficiency, completely overwhelming the opponent's frontcourt in limited minutes. His massive defensive presence (+4.8 Def) altered countless shots at the rim, fueling transition opportunities. This highly concentrated burst of two-way dominance resulted in an elite +20.9 total impact score.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +26.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +35.7
Avg player in 23.7m -14.8
Impact +20.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
19
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Aggressive drives to the basket and a massive defensive effort (+6.7 Def) generated a strong positive impact despite a lack of perimeter shooting. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and secured contested rebounds to end defensive possessions. His physical style of play punished mismatches and provided a crucial edge in the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.7
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 31.2m -19.6
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kornet 24.1m
7
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.6

Excellent rim protection (+5.5 Def) and mistake-free offensive execution anchored a highly effective stint in the frontcourt. He maintained his streak of high-percentage finishing by strictly taking high-value shots around the basket. His positional discipline and smart connective passing kept the offense flowing smoothly.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 24.1m -15.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 16.3m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

A sudden inability to finish through contact snapped a long streak of efficient scoring and severely dragged down his overall impact. He forced several contested looks against set defenses, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent runs. While his defensive metrics remained positive, his offensive struggles completely derailed his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 16.3m -10.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kelly Olynyk 10.9m
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Despite solid defensive positioning (+2.5 Def) and active hustle, his complete lack of offensive threat allowed the defense to clog the paint. He passed up open looks and failed to stretch the floor, stalling the second unit's momentum. His negative overall impact reflects the offensive stagnation that occurred during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 10.9m -6.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a brief rotation stint, failing to record a single counting stat while posting a negative defensive rating. He was caught out of position on several defensive rotations, allowing easy scoring opportunities. His inability to impact the game physically or spacing-wise resulted in a quick hook to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -126.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 7.3m -4.5
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 35.6m
29
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.5

Relentless offensive aggression and high-volume perimeter creation drove a massive positive impact, even with a handful of missed contested shots. He dictated the tempo of the game, leveraging his scoring gravity to generate high-quality looks for teammates. Strong defensive engagement (+4.3) and active hustle further amplified a dominant, tone-setting performance.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 35.6m -22.3
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 34.6m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite hustle metrics (+6.6) and steady defensive pressure defined his two-way effort, yet his overall impact flatlined due to the team struggling during his shifts. He picked his spots well offensively with highly efficient perimeter shooting, avoiding forced attempts. However, his low usage rate meant his positive individual plays weren't enough to swing the lineup's overall momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +6.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 34.6m -21.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 34.1m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.5

A severe shooting slump from the perimeter (0-for-5 from deep) dragged down his overall offensive efficiency and cratered his net impact. Despite strong defensive metrics (+6.5) and active hustle plays, his inability to convert open looks stalled the offense during his minutes. His sudden drop-off from a recent streak of efficient scoring forced the team to look elsewhere for spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 34.1m -21.3
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
20
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

Efficient shot selection and solid playmaking generated strong raw offensive value, but defensive lapses and likely transition breakdowns resulted in a negative overall impact. He struggled to anchor the paint defensively (+0.5 Def), allowing opponents to capitalize when he was pulled away from the basket. The contrast between his scoring efficiency and his minus-rating highlights defensive rotational issues.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 33.5m -20.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Provided a quick burst of perimeter spacing by exclusively hunting three-point shots during his brief rotation stint. While his offensive aggression yielded a positive box score contribution, a lack of defensive resistance and zero hustle stats kept his overall impact essentially neutral. He operated purely as a catch-and-shoot specialist without altering the game's broader flow.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 5.8m -3.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.6

A massive surge in scoring efficiency fueled a highly impactful bench performance, breaking out of a recent shooting slump. He capitalized on defensive rotations by knocking down catch-and-shoot threes, punishing the opponent's drop coverage. His disruptive point-of-attack defense (+4.2 Def) perfectly complemented his offensive explosion.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 25.9m -16.1
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

A high-volume scoring outburst provided a major offensive spark, but his overall impact was entirely undone by poor defensive execution (-3.5 Def). He was consistently targeted on the perimeter, giving back nearly every point he generated through defensive breakdowns. The stark contrast between his offensive rhythm and defensive lapses defined his polarizing stint.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -3.5
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 24.3m -15.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 15.1m
3
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.0

While his playmaking vision created several high-value scoring opportunities, his reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. Defensive vulnerabilities (-0.4 Def) and likely transition breakdowns during his minutes dragged his overall impact into the negative. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, offsetting the value of his offensive facilitation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +45.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 15.1m -9.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Excellent rim-running and highly efficient interior finishing generated a surprisingly strong positive impact in limited action. He anchored the paint effectively during his shifts, highlighted by a stout +4.1 defensive rating that deterred drives. This performance marked a significant step up in physical engagement compared to his recent outings.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +47.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 13.7m -8.5
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

A drastic reduction in offensive involvement severely limited his ability to influence the game, resulting in a negative overall rating. He failed to establish a physical presence inside, blending into the background during a disjointed rotation stretch. Without his usual scoring punch, his minor defensive contributions weren't enough to keep his shifts afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +77.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 9.1m -5.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Maximized a short stint by making quick, decisive reads and converting his only field goal attempt to keep the offense flowing. Active hustle plays (+2.8) and mistake-free execution ensured he was a net positive during his limited minutes. He perfectly executed the role of a connective piece without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 8.3m -5.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1