GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Danny Wolf 29.3m
9
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.2

Hesitation to let it fly from the perimeter allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes. He made up for the offensive timidity by executing drop coverage perfectly, forcing tough mid-range floaters. This balance of defensive discipline and offensive passivity resulted in a nearly flat impact score.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 29.3m -15.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ziaire Williams 26.9m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.3

Elite weak-side rim protection and perfectly timed deflections fueled a massive defensive rating. He completely shut down his primary assignment on the wing, forcing multiple shot-clock violations. This lockdown perimeter presence combined with timely rim-runs generated one of the highest impact scores of the night.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.1%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +6.8
Defense +11.1
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 26.9m -14.3
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 25.8m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Giving up deep post position too easily allowed opponents to score at will inside, tanking his defensive value. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense. A lack of physicality on the block defined his struggles during this rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 25.8m -13.7
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Drake Powell 25.3m
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

Forcing bad shots out of isolation derailed the offensive flow and led directly to empty possessions. He consistently lost his man on defensive rotations, giving up back-breaking corner threes. This combination of poor shot selection and off-ball defensive lapses drove a heavy negative rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -48.9
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 25.3m -13.4
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 24.0m
11
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Foul trouble and an inability to secure contested defensive rebounds severely limited his overall influence. He was frequently pulled away from the rim by pick-and-pop bigs, neutralizing his typical shot-blocking presence. While his offensive finishing was clean, the defensive sacrifices kept his impact modest.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 24.0m -12.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Nolan Traore 26.3m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.6

Bricking multiple forced jumpers early in the possession completely killed the team's momentum. Houston's guards mercilessly targeted his slow lateral movement in space, blowing by him for easy layups. This disastrous combination of offensive inefficiency and defensive vulnerability resulted in a team-worst impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 26.3m -13.9
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Thomas 22.7m
21
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Tunnel vision on offense and dying on screens defensively gave back all the value his scoring provided. He repeatedly stopped the ball to hunt isolation mismatches, which stagnated the overall offensive rhythm. The negative final score perfectly illustrates how his defensive apathy outweighed his shot-making.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 22.7m -12.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Jalen Wilson 22.6m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Costly reaching fouls and a tendency to bite on pump fakes compromised the team's defensive shell. He was highly passive on the offensive end, floating on the perimeter without cutting with purpose. This lack of engagement on both sides of the ball dragged his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 22.6m -12.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.4

Crushing the offensive glass to create second-chance opportunities anchored his dominant interior performance. He executed dribble hand-offs flawlessly, freeing up shooters while setting bone-crushing screens. His physical imposition in the paint dictated the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 19.2m -10.1
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Failing to close out under control allowed shooters to easily side-step him for open looks. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, consistently trailing his man by a full step. These defensive breakdowns were the primary driver behind his negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 18.0m -9.6
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 36.5m
22
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
-6.8

A heavy volume of live-ball turnovers completely erased his offensive contributions, leading directly to opponent transition scores. His tendency to force passes into tight pick-and-roll windows allowed the defense to dictate the tempo. The massive gap between his base production and negative final impact highlights exactly how much he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 36.5m -19.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Alperen Sengun 33.7m
20
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.4

Masterful orchestration from the high post completely dismantled the opposing drop coverage. His massive positive impact stemmed from elite shot selection and perfectly timed defensive rotations that deterred drives to the rim. Drawing multiple shooting fouls on pump fakes underneath further compounded his immense value.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +46.9
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.3
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 33.7m -17.7
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Amen Thompson 32.5m
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.2

Suffocating point-of-attack defense completely neutralized the opposing primary ball-handler. His elite burst in transition punished a lazy retreating defense, driving a massive positive rating. He consistently made the right read on drive-and-kicks, ensuring every offensive possession ended in a high-quality look.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +23.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 32.5m -17.2
Impact +16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Defensive versatility kept him afloat, but a string of clanked perimeter jumpers dragged his overall efficiency down. He struggled to establish deep post position against stronger matchups, settling instead for contested fadeaways. His ability to switch onto smaller guards on the perimeter ultimately salvaged a slightly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 32.4m -17.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tari Eason 22.0m
15
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.0

Relentless energy on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's momentum. He completely disrupted the passing lanes during a pivotal second-quarter stretch, turning deflections into easy run-outs. This high-motor approach maximized his value despite limited offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 22.0m -11.7
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Rookie hesitation on defensive switches led to several open perimeter looks for his assignments, muting his overall value. He navigated screens poorly during the third quarter, forcing teammates into difficult rotation scenarios. However, active hands in the passing lanes helped keep his final rating just above water.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 31.4m -16.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
Josh Okogie 20.7m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Poor spacing and an inability to punish defensive closeouts cratered his overall effectiveness. Opponents actively targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, knowing he would struggle to fight through heavy screens. A lack of offensive rhythm combined with defensive mistimings resulted in a steep negative score.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 20.7m -10.9
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Complete offensive invisibility allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team other threats. He was repeatedly beaten on backdoor cuts during a sluggish first-half stretch, bleeding points in the paint. Failing to generate any gravity severely handicapped the floor spacing while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 15.3m -8.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

This short but physical stint was defined by aggressive closeouts that ran shooters off the three-point line. He kept the ball moving fluidly on offense, refusing to let the possession stall. Disciplined role-player execution resulted in a tidy positive impact during his limited run.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 10.8m -5.7
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Provided a brief burst of energy by maintaining a rigid defensive shell during a fast-paced transition sequence. He executed his limited role without forcing the issue, keeping the offense flowing. A timely hustle play to secure a loose ball defined his short run.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +76.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 1.5m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Logged purely garbage-time minutes with no meaningful events to swing his neutral rating. He maintained the team's spacing without committing any egregious errors.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +166.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0