GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 38.1m
26
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Surgical shot selection and lockdown wing coverage resulted in a dominant two-way performance. He punished defensive closeouts with elite efficiency while simultaneously neutralizing his primary matchup on the other end.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 38.1m -22.2
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 37.4m
25
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.4

Bouncing back from a severe scoring drought, his aggressive downhill attacks were offset by costly live-ball mistakes. Forcing the issue in traffic likely led to empty possessions that allowed the opponent to capitalize in transition.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 37.4m -21.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Rudy Gobert 36.9m
11
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.1

Completely dictated the terms of engagement in the paint through terrifying rim protection and flawless offensive execution. Opponents actively avoided challenging him at the basket, allowing him to generate massive value without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.2
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 36.9m -21.4
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 35.2m
28
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.5

A heavy diet of isolation sets yielded high scoring volume but limited his overall positive influence. While he successfully bullied his way to the rim, defensive stagnation and missed perimeter jumpers kept his net rating grounded.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +36.3
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 35.2m -20.6
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
22
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Blistering perimeter marksmanship masked a lack of resistance on the defensive end. While his floor-spacing was essential, getting targeted on switches prevented his hot shooting from generating a larger positive margin.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 34.0m -19.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 23.9m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Strong interior defense was entirely undone by disjointed offensive execution and an inability to secure the ball. He struggled to find his rhythm in the half-court, leading to empty trips that dragged down the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -39.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 23.9m -13.9
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Mike Conley 14.0m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

An inability to dictate the offensive tempo or stay in front of quicker guards resulted in a steep negative rating. He looked a step slow navigating screens, allowing easy penetration that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 14.0m -8.2
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 10.7m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Failed to make a meaningful imprint during his brief rotational minutes due to poor positioning. Getting caught out of rotation on defense surrendered easy looks that quickly pushed his impact score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 10.7m -6.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Errant shot selection and a complete lack of defensive resistance made him a severe liability during his short stint. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him in isolation, turning his minutes into a highly profitable stretch for the offense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 9.7m -5.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 37.5m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite extending his streak of highly efficient shooting, his overall influence slipped into the negative due to hidden costs on the floor. Strong hustle metrics couldn't overcome the defensive concessions he made against physical frontcourt matchups.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 37.5m -21.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
30
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.8

A massive scoring surge broke him out of a recent slump, but his overall impact was muted by inefficient perimeter shooting. Forcing up misses from deep prevented his high-usage night from translating into a dominant net positive.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 36.8m -21.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Darius Garland 36.5m
16
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.0

Heavy offensive initiation duties resulted in costly empty trips that severely damaged his net rating. Even with active hands generating defensive events, poor shot selection and likely live-ball mistakes wiped out his positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 36.5m -21.4
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 29.9m
11
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Elite rim protection and relentless activity on the glass drove a massive positive impact despite a dip in his usual offensive volume. He completely controlled the paint defensively, proving his value doesn't rely on offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -44.8
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense +9.3
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 29.9m -17.4
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

A lack of overall floor connection cratered his rating during a brief rotational stint. While he found the basket slightly more than his recent average, empty possessions and missed rotations kept him firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -49.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 14.9m -8.7
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Sam Merrill 30.8m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.1

Lethal perimeter spacing completely warped the opposing defense and drove an elite net rating. Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, his constant off-ball movement created gravity that benefited the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 30.8m -17.9
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.6

Stifling perimeter defense and timely hustle plays fueled a strong positive showing. He abandoned the three-point line after early struggles to focus on high-percentage cuts and shutting down his primary assignment.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.4
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 27.1m -15.8
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylon Tyson 18.3m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

A massive drop-off in offensive aggression left him floating on the perimeter without much influence. He managed to salvage his rating from plunging further through competent defensive rotations and active rebounding.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 18.3m -10.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Invisible during his short stint on the floor, failing to register a single hustle play. Defensive lapses in transition ultimately dragged his brief appearance into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 7.9m -4.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0