GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 36.3m
30
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Sizzling perimeter shot-making broke the defense's back, as he consistently punished drop coverage with lethal pull-up triples. His aggressive mentality forced early rotations, creating a ripple effect that energized the entire half-court offense. Engaged off-ball defense ensured his scoring explosion translated into a robust positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 36.3m -16.7
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.7

High-volume inefficiency dragged his overall impact into the red despite the flashy scoring total. He repeatedly bailed out the defense by settling for deep, contested pull-ups early in the shot clock rather than pressuring the rim. The sheer number of empty possessions he generated ultimately outweighed his sporadic perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 34.3m -15.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Scottie Barnes 33.2m
20
pts
14
reb
10
ast
Impact
+19.5

Masterful offensive orchestration defined this elite two-way clinic. He dictated the tempo perfectly, using his size to collapse the defense before spraying pinpoint passes to open shooters. Combined with dominant glass-cleaning and switchable defense, he completely controlled the game's flow from tip to buzzer.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +23.7
Hustle +6.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 33.2m -15.3
Impact +19.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 24.4m
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Bully-ball drives to the rim generated consistent, high-percentage looks in the painted area. While his outside jumper lacked rhythm, his willingness to absorb contact and finish through traffic kept the chains moving. A few defensive lapses prevented his rating from soaring higher, but his downhill pressure was undeniably effective.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 24.4m -11.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ochai Agbaji 11.1m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Operated strictly as a low-usage floor spacer during his brief stint on the hardwood. He stayed within himself offensively, taking only what the defense conceded without forcing bad looks. Solid positional defense kept his overall impact slightly in the green despite minimal touches.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 11.1m -5.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact at the rim snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient performances. However, he refused to let his broken jumper dictate his energy, crashing the offensive glass relentlessly to generate extra possessions. Gritty interior defense and high-motor hustle plays ultimately kept his head just above water in the impact metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 26.0m -12.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

A completely broken jumper rendered him an offensive liability, as defenders aggressively sagged off him to pack the paint. Unable to connect from deep, his presence actively choked the floor spacing for Toronto's primary creators. While he tried to compensate with active hustle on loose balls, the offensive dead weight was too heavy to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 23.2m -10.7
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 21.2m
2
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.6

Opposing guards completely ignored him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot while clogging the passing lanes. This severe lack of scoring gravity neutralized his playmaking attempts and stalled the second-unit offense. Missing nearly every look he took, his inability to punish drop coverage resulted in a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 21.2m -9.8
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Rushing his mechanics led to a string of badly bricked perimeter looks that killed offensive momentum. He was entirely neutralized as a scoring threat, failing to capitalize on the few open spot-up opportunities he received. To his credit, he remained highly engaged on defense, using his length to contest shots and prevent his impact score from bottoming out entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 12.3m -5.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Gradey Dick 11.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Floating aimlessly around the perimeter, he failed to establish any sort of offensive rhythm or spacing gravity. He was easily bumped off his spots by physical defenders, leading to a completely invisible stint on that end of the floor. A lack of assertiveness and empty trips down the court drove his sharply negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -36.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 11.8m -5.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Maximized a very brief rotation stint by executing defensive assignments perfectly and avoiding mistakes. He stayed within the flow of the offense, taking a high-percentage look when the ball swung his way. Solid positional awareness ensured he was a net positive during his limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 6.2m -3.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Spencer Jones 37.8m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Despite respectable hustle metrics on the glass, his complete inability to generate field goals cratered his overall offensive value. Relying entirely on drawing fouls for his scoring, his passive shot selection allowed defenders to sag off and clog the lane for teammates. The underlying negative impact reflects a player who hemorrhaged value through turnovers and stalled half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 37.8m -17.4
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jamal Murray 37.6m
21
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.0

Clanking through a rough shooting night, his typical scoring gravity was noticeably absent as he forced tough mid-range pull-ups. However, he salvaged his overall impact rating by locking in defensively and disrupting passing lanes. Smart secondary playmaking kept the offense afloat when his own jumper refused to fall.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 37.6m -17.1
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Peyton Watson 36.0m
24
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Relentless defensive energy and elite hustle metrics drove a highly positive overall rating. While his tunnel vision was evident with zero assists, aggressive rim pressure offset a frigid night from beyond the arc. He consistently punished mismatches inside to double his usual scoring output without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 36.0m -16.6
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 34.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Pickett 28.3m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

Perimeter shot-chucking severely damaged his offensive efficiency, as he settled for heavily contested looks late in the clock. A total lack of resistance at the point of attack compounded his struggles, allowing opposing guards to easily break the paint. His negative overall score stems directly from this combination of poor shot quality and defensive apathy.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 28.3m -12.9
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.2

Absolute dominance in the painted area anchored this massive net-positive performance. Supreme shot selection led to near-perfect efficiency, while his exceptional defensive positioning completely deterred interior drives. Operating as an offensive hub, his sharp passing out of the post maximized Denver's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +10.0
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 23.1m -10.6
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

An abysmal shot profile defined this outing, as he repeatedly short-circuited offensive possessions with early-clock, contested jumpers. Generating absolutely zero rim pressure, his one-dimensional perimeter game allowed the defense to comfortably stay home. The severe negative impact reflects how his cold streaks actively kill offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 30.1m -13.8
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 25.4m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Despite maintaining his streak of highly efficient shooting, his overall value plummeted due to sloppy ball security and ill-advised fouls. He was simply too passive on the offensive end, deferring to teammates instead of attacking closeouts. Giving away possessions completely erased the value of his solid rebounding effort.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 25.4m -11.6
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Exceptional floor spacing from the frontcourt opened up driving lanes for the guards all night. He capitalized on defensive rotations with pristine shot selection, knocking down open looks without forcing the issue. Active rim protection and timely closeouts further boosted his highly efficient two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 21.6m -10.0
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1