GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
18
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.4

An abysmal perimeter shooting display threatened to sink his value, but phenomenal weak-side rim protection (+11.5 Def) salvaged his overall impact. He continuously bricked wide-open catch-and-shoot looks, forcing the offense to play out of the mud. However, his relentless effort on the glass and timely defensive rotations against driving wings kept his team afloat.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 0/9 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +11.5
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 33.4m -20.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 30.9m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

High-energy rim-running and constant activity in the dunker spot drove a highly positive box score impact. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, generating easy looks before the defense could set. This vertical gravity, combined with active hands in the passing lanes (+4.2 Hustle), made him a constant nuisance on both ends.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 30.9m -19.1
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 30.1m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.6

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive efficiency and overall net rating. Despite an uptick in offensive volume, the sheer number of wasted possessions allowed the defense to leak out in transition. His inability to leverage his size in the paint against smaller matchups defined a frustratingly perimeter-oriented performance.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 30.1m -18.7
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 26.4m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

Lethal perimeter marksmanship fundamentally warped the opponent's defensive shell, opening up driving lanes for his teammates. By consistently punishing under-screens in the pick-and-roll, he generated a massive positive swing in offensive efficiency. His active closeouts on the other end (+6.0 Def) proved he was far more than just a floor-spacing specialist.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 26.4m -16.3
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Terance Mann 23.7m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.2

Relentless perimeter harassment and elite loose-ball recovery (+6.3 Hustle) set the tone for a massively impactful two-way performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation by fighting through every off-ball screen. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, he capitalized on the transition opportunities generated by his own defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 23.7m -14.7
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 21.9m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.8

Tunnel vision and forced isolation attempts against set double-teams completely derailed the offensive flow. The scoring output was entirely negated by defensive lapses (-2.2 Def), where he repeatedly lost his man on back-cuts. This black-hole approach to offensive creation allowed the opponent to consistently spark fast breaks off his long misses.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 21.9m -13.6
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Nolan Traore 21.6m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

Poor decision-making in traffic and an inability to finish through contact resulted in a heavily negative overall impact. He consistently drove into crowded paint areas without a bailout plan, leading to dead-end possessions. This continuation of a recent offensive slump highlighted his struggles to read secondary defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 21.6m -13.4
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 17.9m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Exceptional spatial awareness and timely perimeter shot-making stretched opposing bigs far beyond their comfort zones. He utilized his gravity as a trailer in semi-transition to generate high-value looks before the defense could match up. Coupled with sturdy post defense (+4.7 Def), his versatile skill set provided a massive stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 17.9m -11.1
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

While he secured positioning well on the interior, a lack of mobility in pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing guards to turn the corner at will. His offensive touches were efficient, but they couldn't overcome the structural defensive breakdowns he surrendered in space. Being repeatedly targeted in high drop coverage defined a frustrating stint that dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 17.1m -10.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 14.6m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

A complete offensive vanishing act severely handicapped his unit's ability to generate half-court momentum. Missing every attempt he took, his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates. Although he provided adequate resistance on the perimeter (+2.7 Def), the total lack of offensive production made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 14.6m -9.1
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Rushing his perimeter attempts during a highly abbreviated stint prevented him from finding any offensive rhythm. The forced shots early in the shot clock led to empty trips and an immediate hook from the coaching staff. He simply didn't have the runway to impact the game positively after those initial misfires.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 34.5m
31
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.6

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense drove a massive positive box score impact, highlighted by surgical pick-and-roll reads. He exploited drop coverage repeatedly, stepping into high-value perimeter looks with zero hesitation. Furthermore, his surprisingly engaged post defense (+7.0 Def) prevented opponents from punishing him on switches.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.0
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 34.5m -21.4
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 6
S Kawhi Leonard 28.4m
26
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.6

Dominant two-way performance driven by elite perimeter shot-making and suffocating point-of-attack defense (+9.0 Def). His ability to seamlessly hunt mismatches in isolation created a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor. The veteran wing completely neutralized his primary assignment while maintaining a highly efficient offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.0
Raw total +34.1
Avg player in 28.4m -17.5
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S John Collins 26.2m
16
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Continuing a recent pattern of excellent interior finishing, his rim-running generated consistently high-percentage looks. The positive impact stemmed largely from his vertical spacing and active weak-side rotations (+5.7 Def) that deterred drives. By capitalizing on defensive breakdowns in the pick-and-roll, he maximized his touches without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 26.2m -16.3
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 24.9m
5
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.9

A stark drop-off in offensive execution severely dragged down his overall impact, as he struggled to establish deep post position against physical coverage. Despite missing multiple point-blank bunnies that tanked his offensive rating, his rim protection (+6.2 Def) remained a bright spot. Opposing bigs routinely forced him into contested, low-quality hooks in the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 24.9m -15.4
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kris Dunn 22.2m
9
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.0

Excellent point-of-attack pressure and timely loose-ball recoveries (+4.8 Hustle) fueled a highly disruptive stint off the bench. He broke out of a recent offensive slump by aggressively attacking closeouts rather than settling for perimeter looks. This relentless energy in transition sequences kept the opposing backcourt entirely out of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 22.2m -13.8
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Slashing aggressively off the ball yielded a massive offensive surge, as he continuously found soft spots in the opponent's zone coverage. His shot profile was exceptionally clean, relying on backdoor cuts and transition finishes rather than forced isolation plays. This disciplined approach to finding high-percentage looks drove a highly positive box score impact.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 27.1m -16.9
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 25.8m
5
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.6

Poor shot selection against set defenses cratered his overall impact, snapping a recent streak of highly efficient play. He repeatedly forced contested runners in traffic rather than keeping the ball moving to the weak side. Although his perimeter containment (+4.3 Def) was solid, the empty offensive possessions consistently stalled momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 25.8m -16.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Passive offensive positioning and an inability to stretch the defense resulted in a severely negative overall footprint. While he didn't actively hurt the team with missed shots, his reluctance to let it fly allowed defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the driving lanes. This lack of gravity during second-unit stretches completely bogged down the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 22.9m -14.1
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 20.6m
3
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.3

Elite drop-coverage execution defined this outing, as his massive defensive rating (+12.5) completely overshadowed a quiet scoring night. By walling off the restricted area, he forced a steady diet of inefficient mid-range floaters from opposing guards. Even with his perimeter shot not falling, his sheer physical presence anchored the team's most successful defensive stretches.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +12.5
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 20.6m -12.7
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Kobe Brown 2.4m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A brief, ineffective cameo snapped a recent streak of highly efficient finishing. Rushing his attempts during a chaotic transition sequence led to empty possessions and an immediate trip back to the bench. This lack of discipline in semi-transition tanked his brief window of opportunity.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Cardio-only minutes at the end of a rotation stint left virtually zero statistical footprint on either end of the floor. He failed to register any meaningful defensive rotations or hustle plays during his brief time on the court. The negative impact score reflects a completely passive stretch where the opposing unit controlled the tempo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Relegated to a fleeting garbage-time appearance, his overall influence on the game was negligible. A couple of minor closeouts (+0.8 Hustle) provided the only tangible evidence of his time on the hardwood. He operated strictly as a floor-spacer without ever factoring into the offensive progression.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0