GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 36.8m
16
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-4.2

High-level playmaking volume was unfortunately offset by a series of live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition game. He struggled to read the weak-side tag in the pick-and-roll, forcing passes into tight windows that were easily picked off. Despite solid individual defense, his offensive miscues proved too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 36.8m -21.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S De'Aaron Fox 34.5m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.5

Pushed the pace relentlessly, turning defensive stops into immediate transition advantages before the defense could set. His high hustle metrics reflect a phenomenal effort fighting over screens and hounding ball-handlers for 94 feet. This aggressive point-of-attack defense completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.4
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 34.5m -19.8
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.5

Punished defensive rotations all night by relocating perfectly along the perimeter for catch-and-shoot daggers. His outstanding defensive rating was driven by flawless weak-side help and timely digs at the nail that disrupted drives. This two-way execution provided a massive stabilizing presence for the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 33.4m -19.1
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 31.9m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

A string of ill-advised fouls and slow closeouts severely undercut his otherwise efficient scoring night. He routinely got beat off the dribble by quicker wings, forcing the defense into rotation and yielding easy corner looks. The veteran's inability to contain the point of attack proved costly during key opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 31.9m -18.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luke Kornet 31.1m
23
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.5

Completely dominated the painted area through elite positioning and relentless offensive rebounding. He neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll attack by playing flawless drop coverage, swallowing up drives and altering everything at the rim. This masterclass in interior efficiency and rim deterrence drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +29.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +8.1
Raw total +43.3
Avg player in 31.1m -17.8
Impact +25.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 0
5
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Struggled mightily to find any offensive rhythm, frequently driving wildly into traffic and coughing up possession. His inability to finish through contact allowed the defense to ignore him and overload the strong side. A highly engaged defensive performance fighting through screens was the only thing preventing a much steeper negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +7.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 23.8m -13.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 22.9m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.9

An uncharacteristically frigid shooting night completely stalled the half-court offense, snapping his recent streak of elite efficiency. He forced heavily contested finishes at the rim rather than kicking out to open shooters when the defense collapsed. While his on-ball defense remained stellar, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his net impact down.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.9m -13.1
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Kelly Olynyk 14.5m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Brutal perimeter spacing allowed the opposing center to camp in the lane and blow up the team's driving angles. He kept firing away from deep despite the cold streak, effectively wasting possessions and bailing out the defense. Solid positional awareness on the other end barely kept his overall impact from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 14.5m -8.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Failed to provide the necessary floor spacing, passing up open looks only to force contested shots late in the clock. His defensive rotations were a half-step slow, leading to a quick barrage of opponent triples. This brief but highly damaging stint forced an early substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 5.9m -3.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Looked entirely out of sync during his brief stint, rushing his offensive reads and clanking his only attempts. He was targeted immediately on switches, giving up straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. The coaching staff quickly pulled the plug after a disorganized and damaging stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -39.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 5.2m -2.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 38.8m
29
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+4.2

A heavy diet of forced drives into traffic cratered his interior efficiency, but his elite playmaking kept the offense humming. He dictated the tempo beautifully in the pick-and-roll, routinely finding the roll man to offset the damage of his own missed layups. Strong positional rebounding and active weak-side defense ultimately tipped his overall impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 38.8m -22.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 35.8m
20
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Blistering perimeter efficiency was almost entirely wiped out by poor transition defense and costly live-ball turnovers. While his active hands generated solid hustle metrics, he repeatedly gambled in the passing lanes to surrender open corner threes. The impressive scoring volume masked a highly disorganized defensive stint that gave points right back.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 35.8m -20.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 34.3m
24
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.9

Completely overpowered the interior defense, utilizing his massive frame to seal deep in the paint for high-percentage finishes. His sudden offensive eruption anchored the unit, forcing the opponent to collapse and scramble in the half-court. Elite rim deterrence and flawless drop coverage solidified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +28.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 34.3m -19.7
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Shaedon Sharpe 28.3m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-22.4

Disastrous shot selection derailed the offense, as he repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the clock. The sheer volume of empty possessions fueled opponent fast breaks and completely killed the team's momentum. Even a few decent defensive rotations couldn't salvage this highly inefficient and damaging outing.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense -10.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total -6.1
Avg player in 28.3m -16.3
Impact -22.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kris Murray 27.2m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Defensive lapses off the ball severely dragged down his overall impact despite highly efficient perimeter shooting. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, bleeding points in the half-court while failing to secure contested rebounds. The resulting defensive breakdowns completely erased the value of his spot-up spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 27.2m -15.7
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Caleb Love 27.9m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

A sudden scoring surge was undermined by ball-stopping tendencies that stagnated the offensive flow. He hunted his own looks from the perimeter at the expense of running the system, leading to empty possessions that sparked opponent transition runs. Poor closeout discipline on the other end further dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.9m -16.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 22.3m
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and offensive glass crashing kept his impact afloat despite clunky finishing around the rim. He thrived as a disruptor in the second unit, utilizing his length to blow up dribble handoffs and force resets. This high-motor approach perfectly compensated for his lack of offensive polish.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +5.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 22.3m -12.8
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 14.7m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Struggled to navigate screens effectively, consistently dying on picks and forcing teammates into uncomfortable switches. While he showed flashes of active hands in the passing lanes, his off-ball defensive lapses surrendered crucial momentum. The offense simply bogged down when he was tasked with initiating sets, resulting in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 14.7m -8.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Hansen Yang 10.7m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Anchored the paint brilliantly during his short stint, using his verticality to alter multiple shots at the rim. He completely shut off the driving lanes, forcing the offense into late-clock bailouts and contested floaters. This defensive discipline generated a highly positive swing without him ever needing to demand the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 10.7m -6.1
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0