GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 33.6m
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Suffocating point-of-attack coverage (+8.0 Def) completely derailed the opponent's primary actions. He paired that elite wing defense with decisive slashing, proving that his recent offensive surge is becoming a reliable weapon.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +8.0
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 33.6m -15.9
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 32.6m
13
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.6

Total control of the restricted area (+8.2 Def) forced opposing drivers into a steady diet of contested floaters. Flawless finishing around the basket maximized his offensive touches, cementing a dominant two-way performance (+9.6 Total).

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.8%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 32.6m -15.4
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Operating strictly as a floor spacer, every single one of his field goals came from behind the arc to punish late closeouts. While his box score metrics were sparkling (+10.2), his overall impact was muted slightly by getting caught on screens defensively.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 30.5m -14.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Anthony Edwards 29.2m
26
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Breaking violently out of a recent slump, his lethal pull-up shooting from beyond the arc stretched the defense to its breaking point. He compounded the offensive explosion with locked-in perimeter defense (+4.8 Def), making him a nightmare matchup on both ends.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 29.2m -13.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Julius Randle 26.7m
15
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.7

Bully-ball tactics in the paint collapsed the defense, allowing him to generate high-quality looks for teammates. His surprisingly robust defensive rotations (+6.0 Def) ensured his physical dominance translated directly to a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 26.7m -12.7
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Naz Reid 24.5m
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.4

Instant offense off the bench was fueled by decisive drives against slower backup bigs. He anchored the second unit flawlessly, combining high-energy closeouts (+5.3 Def) with vastly improved shot selection to post a massive +8.4 net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +40.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 24.5m -11.6
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Mike Conley 15.3m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

Father Time appeared to be catching up as his inability to separate from defenders resulted in another dismal shooting night. The offense stagnated during his shifts, dragging his net impact into the red (-4.1) despite avoiding major defensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 15.3m -7.2
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 12.2m
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.4

Erratic shot selection short-circuited several possessions, continuing a troubling trend of low-efficiency gunning. Opponents eagerly targeted him on the other end (-1.0 Def), ensuring his playmaking flashes were entirely offset by defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.0
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 12.2m -5.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 11.9m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

A complete lack of offensive gravity allowed his defender to roam freely and disrupt the team's half-court sets. While he crashed the glass adequately, his offensive limitations ultimately resulted in a -2.8 net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +27.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 11.9m -5.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Rushing his floaters in traffic led to a scoreless outing that stalled the second unit's momentum. He did show surprisingly active hands at the point of attack (+2.6 Def), but the offensive zeroes kept his impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.7m -2.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Capitalized on every touch around the basket, utilizing his length to finish flawlessly through contact. This hyper-efficient scoring burst in limited minutes generated a stellar +6.4 net impact without needing to force a single perimeter shot.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +8.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 4.7m -2.2
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.6

Diving hard to the rim out of the pick-and-roll yielded immediate dividends and high-percentage looks. His energetic rim-running overwhelmed the opposing deep reserves, spiking his total impact to a robust +6.6.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 4.7m -2.2
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock derailed the offensive flow during his brief appearance. Despite holding his own on defensive switches (+1.4 Def), the empty shooting line resulted in a definitive negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 4.7m -2.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 4.7m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Veteran positioning and brilliant defensive anticipation (+4.2 Def) completely blew up the opponent's garbage-time sets. Even without contributing a single point, his ability to direct traffic and disrupt passing lanes kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 4.7m -2.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 30.9m
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

High-volume shotmaking masked a surprisingly negative overall footprint (-1.3 Total) driven by defensive lapses on the perimeter. Opposing guards consistently exploited his positioning, completely erasing the value of his aggressive downhill drives.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 30.9m -14.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 28.5m
7
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

A severe lack of interior touch drove his impact into the red (-3.7) as he repeatedly failed to convert favorable post matchups. While his defensive anchoring and rim protection remained sturdy (+3.4 Def), the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions negated that effort.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 28.5m -13.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 28.1m
7
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Straying from his usual high-percentage diet to launch heavily contested triples severely damaged his offensive value. He still provided excellent rim deterrence (+4.5 Def), but poor shot selection ultimately dragged his net impact below zero.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 28.1m -13.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 27.9m
4
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-9.8

An inability to punish drop coverage resulted in a catastrophic offensive rating, plummeting his net impact to -9.8. His point-of-attack pressure (+1.8 Def) was completely overshadowed by clanking nine shots and allowing defenders to freely cheat off him.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 27.9m -13.3
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 25.5m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Perimeter defense and active hands kept his overall impact in the green (+1.1) despite a rough finishing night inside the arc. Settling for heavily contested midrange looks cratered his usual efficiency, though he managed to salvage some value by spacing the floor effectively from deep.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 25.5m -12.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Tyler Herro 28.6m
17
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Steady rebounding from the guard spot and opportunistic scoring kept his head above water (+1.0 Total). However, his tendency to stall the offense with late-clock isolation sets prevented him from generating a higher overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 28.6m -13.6
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Elite weak-side rotations and active hands generated a massive +6.0 defensive score, but his offensive execution was a disaster. Forced passes and rushed attempts in traffic tanked his overall impact (-4.3) despite the relentless energy.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -45.1
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 26.2m -12.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Snapping a hot streak of efficient scoring, he forced contested looks at the rim that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Compounding the poor shot selection was a glaring inability to stay in front of his man, resulting in a team-worst defensive rating (-1.9 Def).

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -44.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense -1.9
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 19.8m -9.3
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Dru Smith 5.8m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A brief stint yielded a negative return (-1.8) primarily due to blown defensive assignments on the perimeter. Hitting a lone spot-up jumper wasn't enough to compensate for the driving lanes he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -79.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 5.8m -2.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Completely invisible on the offensive end, his impact score cratered (-7.6) during a disastrous garbage-time stint. Costly fouls and a lack of spatial awareness negated any physical tools he brought to the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total -5.3
Avg player in 4.7m -2.3
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Continuing a brutal shooting slump, his failure to command defensive respect clogged the spacing for the second unit. He offered virtually no resistance or hustle (+0.0) to offset the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 4.7m -2.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Maximized a brief window of playing time by applying relentless ball pressure (+2.8 Def) against the opposing reserves. Quick decision-making in transition allowed him to post a highly efficient +5.0 net impact in under five minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 4.7m -2.2
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Drawing contact and converting at the stripe salvaged his offensive efficiency after a string of poor shooting nights. He maintained solid positional discipline, ensuring his brief stint resulted in a clean +3.0 net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 4.7m -2.1
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1