GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
34
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

A barrage of perimeter jumpers stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point and dictated the entire flow of the game. His willingness to fire away off screens forced constant over-rotations, while surprisingly stout weak-side defense rounded out a dominant showing. The sheer volume of his outside shooting masked any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 8/18 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.1
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 38.3m -19.2
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Noah Clowney 33.5m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.9

Overcame a dreadful shooting night from beyond the arc by leaning heavily into his defensive fundamentals and hustle metrics. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions and fought for loose balls to keep possessions alive. A prime example of impacting winning without needing the jumper to fall.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 33.5m -16.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Egor Dëmin 31.8m
18
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Punished defensive lapses with lethal spot-up shooting from deep, completely changing the geometry of the floor. His quick release on kick-outs made him a constant threat, while disciplined closeouts on the other end bolstered his defensive rating. A highly efficient, low-mistake performance that perfectly complemented the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.4%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.4
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 31.8m -15.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Day'Ron Sharpe 29.9m
5
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

Anchored the interior with elite hustle and bruising screen-setting that freed up the guards on the perimeter. His defensive positioning deterred drives, though his limited offensive repertoire kept his overall impact modest. He did all the dirty work necessary to keep the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +7.3
Defense +7.1
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 29.9m -15.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ziaire Williams 27.3m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

A sharp drop-off in offensive aggression and poor perimeter execution severely limited his value tonight. He settled for contested, late-clock jumpers instead of attacking closeouts, stalling the offense's rhythm. Despite decent defensive effort, his inability to stretch the floor proved costly.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 27.3m -13.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 23.9m
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.1

Tunnel vision and a heavy diet of contested isolation jumpers torpedoed his offensive efficiency. By dominating the ball without converting, he allowed the opposing defense to set up in transition repeatedly. The lack of off-ball movement or secondary playmaking made his minutes a significant net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 23.9m -11.9
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Nic Claxton 23.1m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Played to a dead-even stalemate, providing standard rim protection but lacking his usual offensive rim-running gravity. Opponents successfully neutralized his lob threat, forcing him into a purely reactionary defensive role. Solid but unspectacular, failing to tilt the math in either direction.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 23.1m -11.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Nolan Traore 20.4m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Looked hesitant as a primary initiator, leading to stagnant possessions and a notable dip in his usual scoring punch. While he hit a couple of perimeter looks, his inability to break down his man off the dribble limited the offense's ceiling. Needs to apply more rim pressure to open up the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 20.4m -10.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Drake Powell 18.7m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

Completely out of sync offensively, forcing rushed shots early in the clock that functioned as live-ball turnovers. His defensive impact was virtually non-existent, allowing straight-line drives to the basket without much physical resistance. A highly damaging shift characterized by poor decision-making and a lack of edge.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 18.7m -9.4
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 18.2m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Generated positive value through smart connective passing and sturdy post defense, masking his individual shooting struggles. He kept the ball moving against zone looks and rarely found himself out of position on switches. Proved that high-IQ positioning can salvage an otherwise cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 18.2m -9.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 42.6m
30
pts
14
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.4

Massive offensive usage and excellent defensive metrics were heavily offset by hidden negatives, likely high turnovers or foul trouble, dragging his total impact down to near neutral. He bullied his way to the rim effectively but gave back value through sloppy transition defense following empty possessions. Still, his sheer physical presence anchored the frontcourt for heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.6m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +9.0
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 42.6m -21.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 9
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Dominated the interior with high-level hustle and physical screen-setting that opened up driving lanes for the guards. While his perimeter jumper failed to connect, his relentless work on the glass and paint efficiency kept his overall rating firmly in the green. He maintained a stellar streak of high-percentage finishing inside the arc by strictly taking what the defense conceded.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +6.1
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 39.4m -19.8
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Anthony Black 37.4m
5
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.2

Elite point-of-attack defense was entirely overshadowed by a disastrous offensive showing. He routinely stalled half-court sets by passing up open looks or forcing low-percentage drives into heavy traffic. The defensive intensity is real, but the offensive execution bled points and killed spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 37.4m -18.6
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Desmond Bane 35.4m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.6

A brutal shooting slump completely tanked his overall value despite respectable defensive metrics. Forcing contested looks from deep derailed offensive momentum and led to long rebounds that fueled opponent fast breaks. His effort on the margins simply couldn't salvage the damage done by a high volume of empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 32.1%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 35.4m -17.6
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Efficient perimeter execution and steady defensive positioning drove a solid positive impact. His ability to hit timely spot-up looks kept the floor spaced without forcing bad shots into traffic. A quiet but highly effective two-way shift that kept the offense flowing.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 23.5m -11.9
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 31.3m
13
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

A massive breakout performance fueled by relentless energy and timely perimeter shooting that completely flipped his recent struggles. Even with some inefficiency inside the arc, his defensive versatility and willingness to crash the glass generated crucial extra possessions. He thrived by embracing a gritty, high-motor role that exhausted his matchups.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 31.3m -15.6
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Tyus Jones 17.3m
3
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.2

Operated as a stabilizing force for the second unit, prioritizing ball security and smart defensive rotations. His low usage meant he rarely forced the issue, instead letting the offense flow through better scorers while spacing the floor effectively. A quietly positive shift defined by mistake-free basketball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 17.3m -8.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 14.2m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Struggled to find a rhythm, with missed perimeter assignments and rushed jumpers dragging down his net score. He failed to bend the defense, allowing opponents to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes for primary creators. Needs to show better shot preparation to justify his floor time.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 14.2m -7.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 13.5m
6
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.5

Produced an astronomical per-minute impact by completely sealing off the paint during his short stint. His verticality altered multiple shots at the rim, while quick, decisive rolls to the basket punished defensive rotations. A masterclass in maximizing limited rotation minutes through sheer physical enforcement.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 13.5m -6.7
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Faded into the background during a brief, ineffective stint where he failed to leave a footprint on either end. Lacked his usual disruptive defensive timing, allowing opponents to operate comfortably in his zones. The complete absence of offensive gravity essentially made the team play four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 10.4m -5.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0