GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
27
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.3

Generated massive offensive gravity by shooting over hard contests, keeping the opposing defense in constant rotation. Occasional defensive rebounding lapses and undisciplined closeouts slightly suppressed what was otherwise a dominant floor-spacing performance.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 32.1m -18.2
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Day'Ron Sharpe 32.1m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

Dominated the physical battle with relentless interior defense and high-motor screen-setting. Despite completely erasing second-chance opportunities for the opponent, his overall impact was dragged down by costly moving screens and offensive fouls.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.7
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 32.1m -18.2
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 29.1m
22
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.3

Excelled as a versatile frontcourt hub, blending decisive rim-running with mistake-free positioning. He leveraged his length perfectly to disrupt passing lanes during a pivotal second-half stretch, driving a highly efficient two-way score.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 29.1m -16.6
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 26.7m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Flashes of scoring touch were negated by poor ball security and defensive miscommunications on the perimeter. He struggled heavily to navigate off-ball screens, routinely giving up open looks that canceled out his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 26.7m -15.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Terance Mann 26.0m
6
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.8

Playmaking utility was completely erased by passive shot selection and costly live-ball turnovers in traffic. He failed to capitalize on defensive mismatches, allowing the opponent to sag off and clog the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 26.0m -14.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Thomas 22.4m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Isolation scoring sequences were heavily taxed by tunnel vision and a lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack. His refusal to move the ball against double-teams resulted in empty possessions that stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 22.4m -12.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Delivered a highly efficient two-way performance driven by decisive cuts and active hands in the passing lanes. Capitalized perfectly on defensive breakdowns without forcing the issue or committing careless fouls.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 19.5m -11.0
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Nolan Traore 18.0m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.3

Shot selection was catastrophic, repeatedly settling for highly contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, making his stint a massive liability for the transition defense.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 18.0m -10.1
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Drake Powell 17.5m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Failed to make a dent offensively, with his stint marred by hesitant decision-making and poor floor spacing. Defensively sound, but his inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to shrink the floor without consequence.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 17.5m -9.8
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 16.6m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Provided excellent weak-side rim protection, but his absolute lack of offensive involvement made him a situational piece. The opponent completely ignored him on the perimeter, which allowed them to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 16.6m -9.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 39.7m
27
pts
6
reb
16
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-usage playmaking was severely undercut by a barrage of forced perimeter shots and sloppy passing sequences against traps. The sheer volume of his offensive load masked a staggering amount of value lost to errant reads and long rebounds.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 39.7m -22.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Peyton Watson 28.6m
23
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Aggressive downhill drives generated immense offensive pressure, but he gave a huge chunk of that value back through forced passes into traffic. His willingness to attack the rim defined his stint, even though poor foul discipline suppressed his final rating.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 28.6m -16.2
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 26.8m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

The massive gap between his elite defensive metrics and terrible overall score points directly to catastrophic ball security. Navigating screens well on one end was entirely undone by live-ball turnovers that fed the opponent's transition game.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 26.8m -15.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Christian Braun 24.2m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

A disastrous rotational stint defined by unforced errors and poor spacing on the weak side. Bleeding value through missed defensive rotations, he was a massive net negative who stalled the offensive flow whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -54.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 24.2m -13.7
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S DaRon Holmes II 15.3m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Perimeter efficiency kept his head above water, though his inability to anchor drop coverage against the pick-and-roll limited his ceiling. He bled value on the defensive interior, allowing opposing guards to turn the corner too easily.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -62.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 15.3m -8.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
26
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Blistering catch-and-shoot gravity was almost entirely offset by a porous point-of-attack defense and sloppy ball-handling. Opponents relentlessly targeted him on switches, meaning he surrendered nearly as much value as his hot shooting created.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.7
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 34.0m -19.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Aaron Gordon 21.2m
20
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Thrived as a baseline cutter and lob threat, but his impact was muted by poor foul discipline and defensive lapses in the paint. His inability to contain dribble penetration from opposing wings kept his overall score surprisingly marginal.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 39.2%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 21.2m -12.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Bruce Brown 18.2m
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.8

Operated as an offensive black hole in this matchup, bleeding value through poor spacing and careless turnovers. While his weak-side rotations remained sharp, his inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 18.2m -10.3
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 17.8m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Anchored the interior with elite rim-deterrence that completely disrupted the opponent's driving lanes. However, his massive defensive impact was partially offset by offensive fouls and poor screen-setting that stalled out half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.0
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 17.8m -10.1
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Struggled to initiate the offense cleanly, bleeding value through stagnant pacing and late-clock turnovers. His inability to break down his primary defender off the dribble forced the unit into low-percentage bailout situations.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 14.1m -8.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0