GAME ANALYSIS

GET THIS IN YOUR INBOX

Every breakdown for your team — free, the morning after the game.

Follow your team — free

Already have an account? Log in

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Zaccharie Risacher actually won the night
25 points, 8 boards, 0 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+19.4), hustle (+10.2), and shot-making (+7.1), pushing Net Impact to +18.6.
Scoring +19.4
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +10.2
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Shot-making +7.1
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jeremiah Fears too hard
11 points, 4 boards, 3 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-9.5) and defense (-0.9), pulling Net Impact down to -14.2.
Turnovers -9.5
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -0.9
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +1.1
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
hidden value
Luke Kennard's value was hiding in plain sight
13 points, 0 boards, 1 assist undersells it. scoring (+12.2), shot-making (+4.0), and defense (+1.3) pushed his Net Impact to +7.3.
Scoring +12.2
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +4.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Defense +1.3
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jalen Johnson too hard
19 points, 8 boards, 5 assists gave him counting-stat cover, but turnovers (-14.2) and defense (-1.1) pulled Net Impact down to +3.2.
Turnovers -14.2
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.1
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.6
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 35.9m
19
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

Disastrous overall impact (-11.3) despite decent raw production. His inability to connect from deep cramped spacing, while hidden negatives like blown rotations severely punished the team during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +9.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Dyson Daniels 35.4m
13
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.7

Masterful two-way performance defined by elite defensive disruption (+9.9) and high-level connective passing. His ability to orchestrate the offense without forcing perimeter shots kept the unit in a perfect rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +4.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
25
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.6

An incredible perimeter explosion drove a massive box score rating, but the modest total impact (+1.6) suggests significant defensive give-back. The sheer volume of deep makes was the defining element, though it may have come at the expense of structural integrity on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.3

Overcame brutal perimeter shooting through sheer defensive tenacity (+8.5) and relentless hustle (+5.8). His point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's sets enough to keep his overall impact highly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Mouhamed Gueye 31.4m
10
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.3

Anchored the team with a monstrous defensive performance (+12.1) that completely erased his offensive inefficiency. Controlling the glass and altering shots at a high rate drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +41.6
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +14.0
Defense +5.8
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 5
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Spacing the floor effectively provided offensive gravity, but his overall impact was surprisingly muted (+0.5). He likely struggled with physical matchups inside or gave up ground in pick-and-roll coverage, neutralizing his shooting value.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 21.7m
13
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Elite floor-spacing and hyper-efficient shooting severely punished defensive rotations. His gravity alone opened up the floor, driving a massive positive impact without needing high usage.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

A negative overall impact (-2.2) driven by defensive limitations and low-volume offensive output. His inability to consistently bend the defense or contain his matchup bled value during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Asa Newell 7.0m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

Struggled mightily in a short stint, bleeding value (-5.3) through defensive lapses and an inability to finish inside. The game moved too fast for him during his rotation, leading to quick negative swings.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Logged mere seconds at the end of a quarter. A purely rotational cameo that yielded negligible impact.

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 0.3m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -1.2
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Jordan Poole 38.5m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Heavy perimeter volume fueled a massive offensive bounce-back, yet his total impact (+2.4) lagged far behind his component scores. This discrepancy strongly suggests that costly live-ball turnovers or forced shots inside the arc limited his true value.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Zion Williamson 31.4m
22
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.6

Interior dominance drove a massive box score rating, but his modest overall impact (+2.6) points to hidden costs. Poor transition defense or off-ball tracking likely bled value back to the opponent, keeping his net influence grounded despite the efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jeremiah Fears 26.6m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.2

Wasted possessions and poor perimeter shot selection tanked his overall value (-10.5). A steep drop in scoring efficiency forced the offense into stagnant stretches that the defense easily exploited in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Derik Queen 18.6m
6
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Relentless hustle and elite interior defense (+9.8) defined this highly positive stint. He completely overcame a rough finishing night by generating extra possessions and shutting down the paint on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Karlo Matković 13.5m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

A steep drop in offensive aggression was completely offset by sturdy rim deterrence (+5.4 Def). Anchoring the paint in drop coverage kept his overall impact in the green despite a nearly non-existent scoring footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -60.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

A classic empty-calories performance where strong offensive volume masked a negative overall impact (-1.5). Costly defensive breakdowns or transition turnovers likely erased the value of his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Micah Peavy 29.5m
11
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.5

Connective playmaking and versatile defense (+6.9) fueled a massive breakout performance. His willingness to attack the paint and collapse the defense compensated perfectly for a cold night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Yves Missi 24.4m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.9

Elite defensive metrics (+7.7) highlighted a stint defined by excellent switchability and rim protection. However, complete offensive passivity prevented him from generating a larger overall impact on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

A complete offensive ghosting cratered his impact (-8.4) in limited minutes. Failing to generate any gravity or convert open looks allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Provided slight positive value through positional rebounding and veteran defensive rotations (+2.1 Def). This was a brief, low-usage stint that stabilized the second unit without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1