GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 34.0m
25
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Thriving in transition allowed him to consistently beat his primary defender down the floor and double his usual scoring output. This aggressive downhill attacking mentality drove a highly positive overall rating. Strong weak-side shot contest metrics further bolstered his value, even if his half-court shot selection was occasionally forced.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 38.0%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.6
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 34.0m -16.9
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jalen Pickett 33.3m
7
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.1

Overdribbling at the top of the key routinely stalled the offense and led to late-clock bailouts. These pacing issues and stagnant half-court orchestration severely hindered his overall effectiveness. This lack of decisive playmaking ultimately dragged his net impact into the red despite decent shooting splits.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 33.3m -16.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Hunter Tyson 27.3m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Poor timing on defensive rotations ultimately washed out his solid underlying hustle metrics. While he generated decent value by crashing the weak-side glass, he was frequently targeted and beaten off the dribble in isolation sets. This push-and-pull dynamic left his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 27.3m -13.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Christian Braun 24.8m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.6

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his overall rating tonight. He repeatedly passed up driving lanes and bricked the few perimeter looks he took, allowing the defense to play five-on-four. Despite maintaining his usual high-motor defensive intensity, the sheer lack of scoring gravity made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -7.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 24.8m -12.3
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S DaRon Holmes II 15.2m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Opposing guards consistently exploited his drop technique in pick-and-roll coverage, negating the value of his clean shooting splits. While spot-up perimeter efficiency provided a minor offensive boost, his inability to contain the ball at the point of attack dragged down his overall impact. Ultimately, these defensive lapses resulted in a slightly negative net score.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 15.2m -7.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Settling for heavily contested perimeter pull-ups rather than attacking closeouts actively harmed the team's offensive rhythm. This poor shot selection early in the clock resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. A lack of secondary hustle plays meant he had no way to offset his shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 26.1m -12.9
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Aaron Gordon 24.5m
14
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.9

Bullying his way to the rim out of the dunker spot generated positive value, but he gave much of it back by settling for low-percentage perimeter looks. Forcing the issue from beyond the arc limited the effectiveness of an otherwise solid physical performance. Sturdy post defense against bigger matchups ultimately kept his overall rating above water.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 24.5m -12.1
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 23.7m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Uncharacteristically struggling to convert through contact on his signature floaters neutralized his primary offensive weapon. This sudden disruption in his recent streak of hyper-efficient finishing severely dampened his overall impact. Though he maintained his usual pesky perimeter defense, the lack of scoring punch left him with a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -47.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 23.7m -11.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 20.7m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Losing his man on backdoor cuts and failing to secure critical rebounds in traffic completely undid his highly efficient interior finishing. This poor positional awareness on the defensive end erased the value of his clean offensive execution. An inability to anchor the paint ultimately drove his net score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 20.7m -10.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

Rushing perimeter attempts and failing to draw iron defined a disastrously brief stint. He looked completely out of sync within the offensive flow, compounding the issue by getting repeatedly hunted in isolation. These forced shots and blown defensive assignments led to a massive negative rating in minimal floor time.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -65.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total -7.1
Avg player in 10.4m -5.2
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 35.6m
17
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+22.2

Relentless on-ball pressure and elite event-creation on defense skyrocketed his overall impact. He generated massive value by blowing up dribble handoffs and turning deflections into transition opportunities. This exceptional hustle completely overshadowed a lack of perimeter gravity.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +10.3
Defense +13.3
Raw total +39.9
Avg player in 35.6m -17.7
Impact +22.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 34.7m
29
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.8

Elite shot selection and blistering perimeter efficiency fueled a massive positive impact. He consistently exploited mismatches on the wing, generating high-quality looks that spiked his offensive rating well above his recent baseline. Strong weak-side defensive rotations further cemented a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.3
Raw total +34.0
Avg player in 34.7m -17.2
Impact +16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 34.7m
15
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.9

Rim deterrence and defensive anchoring were the primary drivers of his positive net rating tonight. While his interior finishing was surprisingly erratic against drop coverage, his willingness to stretch the floor successfully kept the spacing intact. Active hands in the passing lanes helped cover for those missed opportunities around the basket.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +9.7
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 34.7m -17.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.8

Aggressive shot-hunting from deep severely capped what could have been a monster statistical night. Despite forcing several heavily contested looks late in the shot clock, his point-of-attack defense kept his overall rating in the green. Fighting over screens provided a steady baseline of defensive value.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 33.4m -16.6
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Vít Krejčí 27.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

Brick after brick from the perimeter dragged down his overall rating, highlighting a brutal shooting slump. He managed to salvage some value through active defensive rotations and loose-ball recoveries. However, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense -6.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 27.3m -13.6
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Luke Kennard 27.5m
8
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

Lingering passively on the perimeter limited his ability to positively influence the game flow. Even though he knocked down the open catch-and-shoot opportunities he was given, a failure to create separation off the bounce left the offense stagnant during his minutes. Consequently, his overall impact slipped slightly into the negative despite clean shooting splits.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 27.5m -13.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Passing up open looks out of the pick-and-roll resulted in empty minutes and a heavily negative overall rating. Opposing defenses completely ignored him to crowd the paint, stalling out the half-court offense. Minor contributions on the offensive glass did little to salvage this highly unproductive stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 18.6m -9.3
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Capitalizing on brief rotational minutes, he provided a massive jolt of scoring efficiency that far exceeded his recent baseline. His decisive catch-and-shoot mechanics punished defensive closeouts and kept the second unit's offense humming. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the value he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 17.3m -8.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 10.8m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Finding the soft spots in the opponent's zone coverage allowed him to convert dump-off passes into easy points at the rim. This hyper-efficient interior finishing during a short stint fueled a highly positive net score. Decisive execution in the dunker spot maximized his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +93.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 10.8m -5.4
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0