GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 34.2m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.5

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers (0/6 from three) sabotaged his overall efficiency and dragged his impact into the red. He remained highly engaged defensively (+5.1) and pushed the pace well (+4.2 hustle), but the empty offensive trips were costly. The inability to find his stroke from deep neutralized his typical downhill threat.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 34.2m -15.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc (0/6) plummeted his overall net impact. Although he provided solid defensive rotations (+3.8), his inability to punish closeouts severely cramped the floor for his teammates. This cold streak broke his recent pattern of efficient scoring and stalled the offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 33.6m -14.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 29.9m
7
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.7

Extreme passivity on offense limited his overall effectiveness, resulting in a slightly negative total impact. He deferred too often, passing up open looks and failing to bend the defense. While his defensive positioning remained sound (+3.5), the lack of scoring aggression made him a non-factor on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 29.9m -13.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 29.1m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.6

Relentless energy and elite hustle metrics (+6.7) fueled a highly impactful two-way performance. He attacked the basket with purpose, avoiding bad perimeter shots and finishing efficiently through contact. This aggressive, downhill style perfectly complemented his tenacious point-of-attack defense (+4.0).

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 29.1m -12.9
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Luke Kornet 21.2m
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Excellent rim deterrence (+4.3 defense) and vertical spacing drove a highly positive shift during his minutes. He consistently altered shots in the paint and secured extra possessions through active screening and hustle (+2.1). This steady, mistake-free interior presence anchored the second unit perfectly.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 21.2m -9.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
27
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.2

An absolute masterclass in shot selection and finishing generated a monstrous +16.2 total impact. By ruthlessly attacking mismatches and converting at an elite clip, he single-handedly broke the opposing defense. This explosive scoring surge completely tilted the game's momentum whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 27.6m -12.1
Impact +16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Generational defensive impact (+9.8) anchored the team and kept his net score positive despite a significant dip in scoring volume. Opponents completely abandoned the paint when he was lurking, altering their entire offensive game plan. Even with a cold night from outside, his sheer length and rim protection dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 26.0m -11.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 4
Dylan Harper 19.9m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

A sudden regression in finishing at the rim shattered his recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring. He managed to salvage some value through excellent defensive reads (+5.0), but the missed bunnies completely derailed offensive momentum. The drastic drop in scoring production left a noticeable void in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 19.9m -8.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Perfect shooting from the perimeter boosted his offensive metrics, but poor defensive rotations (-2.2) negated the gains. He was frequently caught out of position on the weak side, allowing easy backdoor cuts. The inability to string together stops kept his overall impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.2
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 11.5m -5.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Maximized a very brief stint with active defensive hands (+1.5) and smart positioning. He didn't force any action, taking only what the defense gave him to secure a positive net rating. It was a textbook example of executing a specific role without making mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 4.5m -2.0
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Logged empty seconds at the end of the game without registering a single statistic. The lack of playing time prevented him from breaking out of his recent shooting slump. His impact score reflects pure garbage time deployment.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Saw the floor only for the final possession, resulting in a negligible impact rating. He was merely a warm body to close out the clock. No meaningful basketball actions occurred during his shift.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Grabbed a quick rebound in garbage time to secure a slightly positive micro-stint. He stayed active until the final buzzer despite the outcome being decided. The brief appearance was statistically insignificant but technically positive.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Jake LaRavia 38.6m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

A massive surge in hustle metrics (+5.9) and timely perimeter shooting fueled a breakout performance well above his season averages. His willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense, creating a ripple effect that boosted his overall box impact to +13.7. Active hands and constant motion defined a career-type night where he consistently capitalized on rotation mistakes.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +5.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 38.6m -17.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 38.3m
38
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+9.0

Dominant offensive creation drove a stellar +12.5 box impact, even with a cold night from beyond the arc. He supplemented his massive scoring burden with surprising defensive engagement (+8.3) and high-level hustle plays that kept possessions alive. The sheer volume of rim pressure and playmaking easily offset the wasted possessions from deep.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 10/16 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 41.9%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 38.3m -16.8
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 7
S Marcus Smart 34.5m
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.7

Elite defensive metrics (+7.5) were completely negated by an abysmal offensive showing that cratered his net impact to -14.7. Brick after brick from the perimeter allowed the opposition to completely ignore him and pack the paint against primary creators. His defensive tenacity remains unquestioned, but the offensive black hole he created derailed the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense -9.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 34.5m -15.2
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Deandre Ayton 28.9m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Defensive anchoring (+6.2) kept his overall impact in the green despite a lower-than-usual scoring volume. He controlled the paint effectively and maintained his streak of efficient shooting by strictly taking high-percentage looks when he did get touches. The lack of offensive aggression was masked by his ability to deter shots at the rim and secure critical hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 28.9m -12.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Missed perimeter shots (0/3 from deep) severely hampered his offensive gravity and dragged down his overall impact. While he provided his usual energy with a solid +2.3 hustle rating, the lack of floor spacing allowed defenders to sag off him and clog the paint. His offensive limitations ultimately outweighed the moderate defensive value he brought to the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 18.9m -8.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Forcing tough looks from the perimeter (0/5 from three) tanked his offensive value and led to a brutal -10.0 total impact. He tried to compensate with high-energy rotations (+4.3 hustle), but the empty offensive possessions consistently stalled the second unit. Opponents successfully ran him off the line and dared him to create, exposing his current limitations.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -8.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 19.2m -8.4
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Jaxson Hayes 18.2m
10
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.4

Flawless shot selection at the rim generated a massive +14.6 box score impact in limited minutes. By strictly taking high-percentage looks, he maximized his offensive touches without forcing the issue or turning the ball over. This hyper-efficient finishing pattern perfectly complemented the primary creators and kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 18.2m -8.1
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 18.1m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

A heavy reliance on contested triples yielded poor returns, dragging his overall impact into the negative. While he showed good activity on loose balls (+3.5 hustle), his defensive lapses (-0.8) allowed guards to penetrate too easily. The inefficiency from the floor ultimately outweighed his marginal uptick in scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 18.1m -8.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 12.3m
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Complete offensive invisibility resulted in a negative overall rating despite decent positional defense. Failing to convert on any field goal attempts meant his defender could freely roam to double other threats. His minutes were essentially a wash, defined by a lack of aggression that hurt the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 12.3m -5.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Poor shot making in a brief stint prevented him from establishing any positive rhythm. He offered virtually zero defensive resistance, making it difficult to justify extended run off the bench. The inability to capitalize on open catch-and-shoot opportunities defined his lackluster outing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 10.4m -4.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Garbage time deployment resulted in a negligible impact score. He simply burned the final seconds off the clock without registering any meaningful actions. There was no opportunity to influence the game in either direction.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Inserted solely for the final minute of a decided contest, generating a flat impact score. The lack of minutes completely halted his recent momentum of modest scoring contributions. This was purely a rotational placeholder appearance.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 0.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A rushed, missed three-pointer in the dying seconds slightly dinged his otherwise neutral impact. He failed to execute in his lone offensive touch during garbage time. The brief cameo was marred by poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 0.8m -0.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0