GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
21
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.6

An uncharacteristic volume of forced, contested jumpers completely derailed his usual hyper-efficient offensive rhythm. The defense successfully walled off his driving lanes, baiting him into settling for tough perimeter looks that bailed them out. While he remained engaged defensively, the sheer number of empty offensive trips sank his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 37.7%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 29.6m -15.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Williams 28.0m
16
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.0

A phenomenal motor defined this outing, as he consistently generated extra possessions through sheer hustle and physical defensive rotations. While his mid-range touch remains somewhat erratic, his willingness to do the dirty work in the trenches kept his overall impact firmly positive. He essentially outworked his own shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 28.0m -15.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 25.9m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Vertical spacing and rim-running put constant pressure on the interior defense, opening up the floor for the primary ball-handlers. He paired this offensive gravity with disciplined drop coverage, altering trajectories in the paint without accumulating costly fouls. A highly functional two-way performance that anchored the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 25.9m -13.9
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Wiggins 24.7m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Disciplined shot selection extended his streak of highly efficient scoring nights, taking exactly what the defense conceded. His true value, however, materialized on the other end through relentless point-of-attack harassment that disrupted the opposing backcourt. He continues to be a stabilizing two-way connector who never forces the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.5
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 24.7m -13.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 20.1m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Bricked perimeter looks allowed the opposition to pack the paint and ignore him in half-court sets. Despite throwing his body around to generate loose balls and playing his trademark physical defense, the offensive spacing issues he created were too severe to overcome. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately dragged down the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 20.1m -10.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Elite point-of-attack defense was entirely overshadowed by a disastrous shooting night that crippled the team's offensive flow. He hesitated on open catches and forced wild attempts in traffic, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. The offensive ineptitude completely erased the value of his perimeter clamps.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 24.9m -13.3
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Poised decision-making and timely perimeter shot-making provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the second unit. He matched his offensive efficiency with phenomenal defensive anticipation, blowing up passing lanes and staying glued to his assignments. A brilliantly balanced performance that seamlessly connected the offense and defense.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 24.3m -13.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 22.1m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

An absolute masterclass in impacting winning without putting the ball in the basket. Despite suffering through a brutal shooting slump, he generated massive value by relentlessly chasing loose balls, taking charges, and executing flawless defensive rotations. His off-the-charts hustle metrics completely insulated the team from his cold shooting hand.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +9.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 22.1m -11.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Firing blanks from the perimeter neutralized any theoretical floor-spacing value he was meant to provide. Opponents easily exploited his lack of interior physicality, pushing him off his spots and controlling the painted area during his minutes. The combination of missed shots and a soft interior presence resulted in a heavily negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 18.4m -9.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Knocking down open corner looks forced the defense to respect his gravity, opening up vital driving lanes that had previously been choked off. He paired this sudden offensive resurgence with his standard brand of gritty, switchable defense that disrupted multiple actions. Snapping out of his shooting slump completely transformed his on-court utility.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 17.0m -9.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a brief rotational look, rushing his lone offensive attempt. While he wasn't a glaring liability on defense, he failed to imprint any positive momentum before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 5.0m -2.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 33.7m
17
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.9

A complete inability to connect from beyond the arc cratered his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to sag into the paint. While he provided sturdy resistance on the other end of the floor, those empty perimeter possessions stalled out the half-court offense. His shot selection ultimately neutralized his otherwise solid physical engagement.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 33.7m -18.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 31.1m
28
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.9

Lethal perimeter execution broke the opposing defensive scheme, as he punished every late closeout with blistering accuracy from deep. Beyond the scoring barrage, his active hands and high-motor rotations suffocated ball-handlers on the perimeter. This was a masterclass in two-way dominance driven by elite shot quality and defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +51.6
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 31.1m -16.7
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 28.5m
9
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.6

Relentless interior efficiency continues to be his calling card, extending his streak of high-percentage finishing around the rim. He anchored the paint effectively, combining disciplined contests with smart positioning to generate a massive positive swing. Operating strictly within his role maximized his value on both ends.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 28.5m -15.3
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kon Knueppel 27.9m
23
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.3

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a massive scoring surge, keeping his offensive ceiling incredibly high. However, his overall impact flatlined just below neutral due to defensive give-backs and off-ball lapses that allowed opponents to match his production. The raw scoring volume disguised a relatively porous defensive stint.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 27.9m -14.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S LaMelo Ball 25.2m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Defensive disengagement severely punished his overall rating, bleeding points at the point of attack despite finding his rhythm from beyond the arc. Opposing guards consistently exploited his poor screen navigation, forcing the defense into constant rotation. The slick perimeter shooting couldn't outpace the damage done by his porous on-ball resistance.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.7
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 25.2m -13.5
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Forced drives into traffic and contested looks derailed his offensive rhythm, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. He failed to bend the defense, resulting in stalled possessions and empty trips that dragged down the unit's momentum. Even with decent point-of-attack pressure, his erratic shot selection doomed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 23.2m -12.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 20.3m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-energy closeouts and active weak-side rotations kept his defensive value firmly in the green. However, his ongoing struggles to generate any meaningful offensive gravity allowed defenders to completely ignore him on the perimeter. He remains a situational defensive specialist whose offensive limitations cap his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +37.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 20.3m -10.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
PJ Hall 19.5m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.5

Exceptional spatial awareness in the pick-and-roll allowed him to feast on easy finishes around the basket. He compounded that offensive efficiency with a suffocating interior presence, deterring drives and blowing up actions in the paint. It was a perfectly executed role-player shift that swung the game's momentum entirely.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +7.8
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 19.5m -10.4
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.6

Floating aimlessly on the perimeter without attempting a single shot completely killed the team's half-court spacing. His hesitance to engage offensively was compounded by slow defensive processing that left him a step behind on rotations. The sheer lack of physical imposition or assertiveness resulted in a catastrophic plus-minus crater.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +52.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total -6.6
Avg player in 12.9m -7.0
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Green 10.4m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Complete offensive passivity rendered him a liability during his brief stint on the floor. Without applying any rim pressure or floor-spacing gravity, the offense essentially operated four-on-five. A lack of defensive disruption meant he offered nothing to offset his total disappearance on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 10.4m -5.6
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A fleeting garbage-time appearance offered virtually no opportunity to leave a statistical footprint. He essentially functioned as a cardio placeholder, logging a handful of empty trips without actively influencing the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.4m -1.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Maximized a microscopic window of playing time by immediately capitalizing on a spot-up opportunity. His readiness to pull the trigger provided a quick offensive jolt before heading back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +116.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 2.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Rushed an ill-advised perimeter look during a brief cameo that failed to generate any rhythm. He was unable to string together enough possessions to settle into the flow of the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +116.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0