GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 32.5m
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Tremendous energy on loose balls and cuts to the basket (+4.7 Hustle) was completely undone by defensive lapses. He routinely lost his man off the ball (-0.1 Def), bleeding easy points that erased the value of his highly efficient interior finishing.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -87.0
+/- -60
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 32.5m -19.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Pure bucket-getting masked a concerning lack of defensive resistance and playmaking. His tunnel vision resulted in a high volume of difficult shots that, while often successful, stalled the broader offensive flow and left him vulnerable to negative swings when the defense adjusted.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -37.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 29.9m -18.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

A complete inability to space the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint for everyone else. Those bricked outside looks compounded with sluggish defensive rotations to create a massive negative swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -49.3
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 28.9m -17.3
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Keyonte George 23.4m
4
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.0

Despite flying around for deflections and playing tenacious on-ball defense (+4.2 Def), his offensive execution was disastrous. A barrage of ill-advised jumpers and likely live-ball turnovers completely torpedoed his overall value, making him a severe liability whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -77.5
+/- -38
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense -6.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 23.4m -14.1
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Kevin Love 15.3m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Veteran savvy on the glass (+3.5 Hustle) couldn't mask the severe lack of mobility that opponents targeted in the pick-and-roll. Forcing contested perimeter shots only exacerbated the issue, leading to long rebounds and easy transition chances the other way.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -86.8
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 15.3m -9.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.7

High-level rim pressure and drive-and-kick creation were offset by a brutal string of unforced errors. The sheer volume of turnovers and defensive gambles gave away too many free possessions, neutralizing an otherwise dynamic offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -41.6
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 34.5m -20.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.7

Defensive miscommunications and poor closeouts routinely left shooters wide open, bleeding points at an alarming rate. His decent perimeter stroke wasn't nearly enough to compensate for the structural damage he caused on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -48.4
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 29.5m -17.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

A brutal regression to the mean offensively, as he was repeatedly stonewalled in the post and forced into low-percentage heaves. The resulting missed shots fueled opponent transition attacks, completely cratering his impact despite decent effort on the glass.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -48.6
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 24.7m -14.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Elite positional awareness and disruptive hands (+4.2 Def) kept the defensive unit glued together. Unfortunately, his complete lack of scoring gravity and clunky offensive finishes allowed opponents to cheat off him, stalling multiple half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -49.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 21.4m -12.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Moussa Diabaté 24.5m
10
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Anchored the interior with phenomenal rim protection and defensive rotations (+6.0 Def) that completely deterred drives. Kept his offensive role strictly to high-percentage putbacks and rolls, ensuring zero wasted possessions while continuing his recent streak of flawless finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 82.2%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +76.1
+/- +38
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 24.5m -14.8
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 22.6m
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.7

Careless ball security completely cratered his underlying metrics despite a hot hand from beyond the arc. The hidden cost of live-ball turnovers and defensive gambles bled points in transition, wiping out any positive momentum generated by his deep shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +75.5
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 22.6m -13.6
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Brandon Miller 22.0m
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.4

A heavy volume of clanked perimeter jumpers severely depressed his overall value despite solid defensive engagement. The sheer number of empty offensive trips negated the value of his active hands on the other end, resulting in a perfectly neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 37.1%
Net Rtg +73.4
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 22.0m -13.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 21.8m
15
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.9

Relentless energy on the glass and loose balls (+3.9 Hustle) set the tone for a highly productive outing. He punished mismatches inside and out by taking only high-value shots, completely avoiding the offensive lulls that usually drag down wing scorers.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 109.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +55.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 21.8m -13.1
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kon Knueppel 18.1m
12
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.5

Elite two-way efficiency drove this massive positive impact, anchored by suffocating perimeter defense (+7.0 Def) that disrupted opponent sets. His pristine shot selection minimized empty possessions, allowing him to capitalize on spot-up opportunities without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +64.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 18.1m -10.9
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 26.3m
4
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.1

Defensive intensity was the sole engine of his positive impact, as he consistently blew up screen-and-roll actions at the point of attack (+7.6 Def). He remained a total non-factor offensively, but his refusal to force bad shots kept him from hurting the team on that end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg +43.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.6
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 26.3m -15.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Green 25.4m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Broke out of a severe scoring slump by aggressively attacking closeouts rather than hesitating on the wing. His point-of-attack defense (+3.3 Def) provided a steady baseline, though a few forced passes in traffic prevented his overall impact from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +54.7
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 25.4m -15.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.7

Capitalized on a massive offensive surge by sealing defenders deep in the paint for easy, high-percentage looks. His vertical spacing and disciplined drop coverage (+4.9 Def) created a massive two-way swing, punishing the opposition's lack of interior size.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +40.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 23.5m -14.2
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

Downhill aggression defined this stint, consistently collapsing the defense to generate high-quality looks at the rim. While his defensive impact was merely average, his ability to string together efficient possessions without turning the ball over kept his net score firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +49.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 17.7m -10.7
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Settling for a steady diet of contested outside looks dragged down his offensive ceiling. However, sturdy post defense and timely weak-side rotations (+2.4 Def) salvaged his overall rating, proving his value lies in physical enforcement rather than perimeter volume.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +96.9
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 13.9m -8.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Rushed offensive decisions and poor shot mechanics from the perimeter resulted in a string of empty trips. Lacked the physical presence on the interior to make up for the missed jumpers, allowing opponents to exploit his defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 12.3m -7.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 12.0m
20
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.2

An absolute microwave performance where elite shot-creation completely overwhelmed the defensive coverage. He hunted favorable matchups in isolation and buried everything, generating a massive positive swing in just a handful of minutes without needing to contribute defensively.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 12.0m -7.2
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0