GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
46
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+22.9

An unstoppable barrage of isolation scoring and elite foul-drawing generated an astronomical overall impact. He systematically dismantled the defense with his pacing, repeatedly getting to his spots in the midrange and at the rim. Even a poor night from beyond the arc couldn't dent his rating, as his relentless rim pressure dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 14/26 (53.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 17/19 (89.5%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +37.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.1
Raw total +46.4
Avg player in 42.0m -23.5
Impact +22.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Williams 41.0m
17
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.0

A heavy reliance on contested mid-range attempts and poor three-point execution dragged his net rating deep into the red. He struggled to create separation against length, resulting in stalled possessions and low-quality looks. Despite decent raw playmaking flashes, his inability to score efficiently at the point of attack severely hampered the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 41.0m -22.9
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 40.1m
23
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.0

Absolute dominance as a rim protector and highly efficient interior finishing fueled a massive positive impact. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions with his length while exploiting mismatches in the dunker spot on the other end. This massive scoring surge combined with elite defensive anchoring defined the frontcourt battle.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +11.2
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 40.1m -22.4
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 32
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 34.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Aaron Wiggins 24.9m
7
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.8

Elite defensive metrics were ultimately undone by a slew of missed perimeter looks that derailed offensive momentum. He snapped a highly efficient shooting streak by forcing contested jumpers late in the shot clock. While he locked down his primary assignment, the empty offensive trips proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 24.9m -13.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 23.9m
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle metrics kept his value high despite minimal offensive output. He completely neutralized his primary assignment, fighting through screens to blow up perimeter actions. His willingness to sacrifice his body on drives more than made up for a quiet shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 23.9m -13.4
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.2

Exceptional defensive disruption and relentless hustle plays drove a highly positive rating despite a high volume of missed shots. He generated extra possessions through sheer activity, constantly harassing ball-handlers and jumping passing lanes. This two-way energy surge perfectly masked his struggles to finish efficiently in traffic.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +6.5
Defense +9.7
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 33.1m -18.5
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Stellar defensive metrics were completely overshadowed by a severe lack of offensive rhythm. He passed up open looks and struggled to finish through contact, severely limiting the spacing for the primary creators. The sharp regression from his usual efficiency allowed defenders to aggressively sag off him into the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +9.4
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 30.7m -17.2
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Solid defensive positioning kept him near neutral, but an inability to stretch the floor limited his overall effectiveness. He struggled to find the range on pick-and-pop actions, allowing the defense to pack the paint. While his scoring saw a slight bump from recent lows, the empty perimeter trips capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 11.2m -6.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 9.7m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

A lack of defensive resistance and low shooting volume resulted in a negative overall showing. Opponents successfully ran him off the three-point line, neutralizing his primary weapon and forcing him into uncomfortable secondary actions. The failure to generate his usual perimeter gravity left the bench unit stagnant.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 9.7m -5.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

High-level hustle metrics and disciplined defensive rotations salvaged a positive impact during a brief stint. He acted as a connective piece, making the extra pass and executing perfectly within the team's defensive scheme. The low offensive usage was offset entirely by his gritty intangible contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +45.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 8.5m -4.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 43.8m
29
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

High-volume scoring efficiency kept his baseline impact afloat, but defensive limitations capped his overall ceiling. He consistently exploited mismatches in the mid-post, generating high-quality looks against smaller defenders. However, a lack of secondary playmaking and average hustle metrics prevented a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.8m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 43.8m -24.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Keyonte George 42.9m
25
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
-8.7

Inefficient volume shooting and poor perimeter execution torpedoed his net rating despite strong raw production. He repeatedly forced action into crowded paint areas, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The playmaking flashes were entirely negated by his inability to convert quality looks from deep.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 42.9m -24.0
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jusuf Nurkić 32.6m
15
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Massive defensive presence and elite rebounding metrics drove a highly positive overall impact despite a clunky shooting night. He anchored the paint effectively, deterring drives and ending possessions with authoritative board work. The sheer volume of extra possessions he generated through hustle plays completely overshadowed his struggles finishing around the rim.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +10.5
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 32.6m -18.3
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

A complete zero from three-point range cratered his offensive value, while poor defensive metrics compounded the damage. He settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups rather than attacking the rim when his outside shot abandoned him. This sharp regression from his recent scoring tear severely bottlenecked the second unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 32.0m -17.9
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 26.9m
8
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.9

A frigid night from beyond the arc dragged his overall impact into the negative despite decent underlying defensive metrics. His inability to punish closeouts from the perimeter stalled the offense during his minutes. The sharp drop-off from his recent scorching form left a noticeable void in Utah's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 26.9m -15.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Sizzling perimeter execution and strong defensive metrics drove a positive shift, breaking him out of a recent shooting slump. He consistently relocated along the arc to punish defensive breakdowns, providing crucial spacing. Active hands and solid hustle plays further cemented his value as a two-way connector in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 26.7m -15.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
6
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.4

A complete lack of defensive resistance and zero hustle contributions resulted in a disastrous net rating. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, failing to navigate screens or contain dribble penetration. Even with decent finishing at the rim, his inability to string together stops made him a massive liability during his stint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 17.5m -9.8
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Continued offensive stagnation dragged down his overall score despite decent defensive mobility. He failed to punish defensive gaps, allowing opponents to cheat off him and crowd the primary actions. While his weak-side help defense remains solid, the lack of scoring gravity makes him difficult to feature in tight games.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -46.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 14.3m -8.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Defensive versatility and timely hustle plays kept his impact firmly in the green despite a massive drop in scoring volume. He accepted a lower-usage role, focusing instead on shadowing primary ball-handlers and disrupting passing lanes. This low-maintenance, high-efficiency shift proved highly valuable in stabilizing the perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 14.0m -7.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Ace Bailey 10.2m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Marginal offensive involvement limited his upside, though active defensive rotations prevented his rating from tanking entirely. He struggled to find his spots against aggressive closeouts, leading to a stark drop-off from his usual scoring output. The lack of assertiveness on the wing left the offense searching for secondary creation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 10.2m -5.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Survived a brutal finishing night by maintaining strict positional discipline on the defensive end. His offensive rhythm was completely disrupted by physical interior defense, snapping a long streak of highly efficient outings. Still, his ability to wall off the restricted area salvaged a slightly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 46.2%
Net Rtg -61.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 4.2m -2.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0