GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 35.9m
19
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.3

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
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 35.9m -19.1
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
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
+7.4

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
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +9.9
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 35.4m -18.8
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
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
+1.6

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
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 33.6m -17.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
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
+6.3

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
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.5
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 33.6m -17.8
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
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
+4.7

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
Offense +3.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +12.1
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 31.4m -16.7
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
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
+0.5

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
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 21.8m -11.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
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
+7.7

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
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 21.7m -11.4
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
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
-2.2

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
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 19.3m -10.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
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
-5.3

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
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 7.0m -3.7
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
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
-0.2

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.3m -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Jordan Poole 38.5m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

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
Offense +7.2
Hustle +7.5
Defense +8.1
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 38.5m -20.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
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
+2.6

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
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 31.4m -16.7
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
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
-10.5

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
Offense -2.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 26.6m -14.1
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
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
+5.7

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
Offense +1.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.8
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 18.6m -9.9
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
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
+0.4

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
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 13.5m -7.1
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
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
-1.5

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
Offense +9.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 36.8m -19.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
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
+4.9

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
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 29.5m -15.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
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
+0.2

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
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.7
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 24.4m -13.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
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
-8.4

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
Offense -5.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 15.6m -8.2
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
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
+0.4

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
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 5.0m -2.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1