GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Anthony Davis 39.0m
26
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.1

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, completely erasing the paint for opponents while scoring at will with pristine shot selection. His astronomical defensive score highlights a stretch where he single-handedly blew up three consecutive pick-and-roll sets. The combination of elite shot-blocking and high-percentage interior finishes made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +15.3
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 39.0m -21.9
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 5
S Max Christie 34.9m
24
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Caught absolute fire from deep, punishing defensive breakdowns with lethal catch-and-shoot precision that skyrocketed his box score impact. Beyond the scoring explosion, his disciplined closeouts and ability to navigate screens bolstered his overall defensive value. This breakout performance was defined by a blistering third-quarter shooting display that completely flipped the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 34.9m -19.7
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cooper Flagg 34.6m
10
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.1

Errant shot selection and forced drives into heavy traffic severely dampened what was otherwise a stellar defensive effort. While his length created havoc and generated deflections, the sheer number of empty offensive trips and missed shots dragged his net impact into the negative. The stark contrast between his elite weakside rim protection and his offensive inefficiency defined his night.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.6
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 34.6m -19.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Daniel Gafford 19.1m
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Maximized his touches by strictly operating within his role as a lob threat, avoiding the turnovers that plague higher-usage bigs. His rim-deterrence and hard-nosed rebounding heavily influenced the positive net impact. A textbook display of vertical gravity forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 19.1m -10.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 12.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Completely abandoned his scoring role to focus entirely on doing the dirty work in the trenches, driving a positive impact through sheer hustle. High-level defensive rotations and constant activity on loose balls offset his lack of offensive production. His willingness to sacrifice his body on screens and box-outs proved vital during a gritty defensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 12.0m -6.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.2

Sloppy ball security and costly reach-in fouls negated his respectable scoring output, tanking his overall impact. Despite showing flashes of solid hustle, his negative score was heavily driven by disjointed offensive spacing and missed rotations. Opponents consistently capitalized on the gaps he left when chasing steals in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 33.3m -18.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Slashed to the rim with great success, but his inability to contain dribble penetration on the other end gave those points right back. The highly efficient scoring was overshadowed by defensive lapses at the point of attack, leading to a negative net rating. His inability to navigate over ball screens allowed opposing guards to walk right into open pull-up jumpers.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 24.4m -13.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Struggled to find a rhythm, with forced jumpers early in the clock stalling the offensive flow and generating long rebounds for the opponent. His lack of secondary playmaking and diminished lateral quickness on defense compounded the negative impact. The inability to stretch the defense with his usual gravity allowed opponents to aggressively trap the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 22.3m -12.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Operated the offense cleanly in limited minutes but became a distinct liability on the defensive end. Bigger guards bullied him on the perimeter, easily bypassing his initial resistance to collapse the defense and generate high-value looks. While his shot selection was pristine, the defensive bleeding heavily outweighed his steady playmaking.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 13.4m -7.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Filled a brief rotational gap with standard energy and effort, though he failed to leave a lasting mark on the game's momentum. Executed a couple of hard closeouts but mostly blended into the background during his short stint. Provided adequate spacing without demanding the ball, resulting in a nearly neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 6.9m -3.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 39.4m
20
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.7

A terror in transition, leveraging elite athleticism to rack up hustle points and generate high-value looks at the rim. His point-of-attack defense completely derailed the opponent's perimeter rhythm, fueling a robust positive impact. The sheer volume of secondary opportunities he created through offensive rebounding was the defining factor of his night.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.1
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 39.4m -22.2
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kevin Durant 37.8m
34
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.2

A massive positive impact was driven by elite shot selection and the ability to convert highly contested midrange looks. His offensive gravity warped the defensive scheme, opening up passing lanes while he carefully avoided costly live-ball turnovers. A steady diet of isolation conversions kept the offense afloat during a critical second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 14/26 (53.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 37.8m -21.2
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
7
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

Impact plummeted due to a high volume of missed perimeter shots that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Despite the offensive bricklaying, he salvaged some value on the other end by utilizing his length to disrupt passing lanes and contest at the rim. The inability to stretch the floor ultimately allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.2%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 37.0m -20.9
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tari Eason 34.2m
19
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Relentless energy on the glass and active hands in the passing lanes generated crucial extra possessions via hustle plays. However, his overall net impact flattened out to neutral due to erratic shot selection and forced attempts in traffic. His defensive versatility stood out, specifically when switching onto smaller guards late in the clock.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 34.2m -19.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely saw the floor before exiting, leaving virtually no statistical footprint. A brief defensive rotation was his only notable contribution in an abbreviated appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 26.8m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.9

Dominated the interior without needing offensive touches, anchoring the paint with elite rim protection that drove a massive defensive score. His impact was heavily bolstered by executing hard screens and securing contested rebounds to deny second-chance points. A textbook display of drop coverage consistently deterred drivers and altered shots at the basket.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +14.4
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 26.8m -15.0
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.8

Bleeding points on the defensive end severely undercut his playmaking contributions, leading to a steep negative impact. Poor shooting efficiency and an inability to stay in front of quicker assignments allowed opponents to generate easy offense. He was actively hunted in pick-and-roll actions, exposing his lack of physicality at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.1
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 22.4m -12.6
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Offensive invisibility allowed defenders to heavily sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates, dragging down the lineup's efficiency. While he provided baseline competence in weakside defensive rotations, the lack of floor-spacing gravity resulted in a negative overall impact. His complete refusal to attack closeouts allowed the defense to ignore him entirely.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 16.3m -9.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Completely hijacked offensive momentum by forcing up empty perimeter looks that sparked opponent fast breaks. He managed to apply decent ball pressure defensively, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions and poor shot selection was too much to overcome. The inability to convert wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities crippled the second unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 14.1m -7.9
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Provided a quick burst of physicality during a short rotation stint, hitting a timely corner three. He wasn't on the floor long enough to establish a meaningful rhythm or accumulate significant hustle stats. Mostly served as a placeholder to buy the starters a breather without giving up defensive ground.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 5.5m -3.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Brought his trademark chaotic energy to the floor but struggled to channel it into productive sequences, missing rushed attempts around the basket. His brief appearance was defined by aggressive closeouts that unfortunately yielded little tangible reward. The short stint resulted in a slight negative impact due to empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 5.5m -3.0
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0