GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
19
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.9

Relentless off-ball motion and elite hustle (+6.5) powered a highly impressive +9.9 overall impact. He consistently blew up passing lanes as a weak-side roamer, sparking a devastating second-quarter run with back-to-back transition steals. His willingness to take charges and dive for loose balls set a gritty tone that permeated the entire lineup.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense +9.4
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 38.0m -18.2
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Anthony Edwards 37.8m
23
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

High-volume inefficiency and defensive lapses (-0.2 Def) resulted in a surprisingly negative -3.0 net impact. A recurring pattern of settling for contested pull-up jumpers early in the clock stalled the offensive flow and fed the opponent's transition game. The sheer quantity of his attempts masked the detrimental effect those empty possessions had on team momentum.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.6%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 37.8m -18.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaden McDaniels 36.2m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.9

Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+13.8 Def) drove a massive +10.9 net impact despite a dip in his usual offensive volume. He completely erased the opposing primary initiator during a pivotal third-quarter stretch, blowing up dribble hand-offs with elite screen navigation. His relentless hustle plays and deflections generated crucial transition opportunities for the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +13.8
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 36.2m -17.3
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Julius Randle 35.0m
15
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

A tendency to stall the offense with methodical, isolation-heavy possessions dragged his net impact into the red (-6.5). He repeatedly forced contested mid-range looks against set double-teams, leading to empty trips and poor transition defense positioning. Those low-efficiency shot selections undermined the physical rebounding presence he established early.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 35.0m -16.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 28.9m
2
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Anchored the paint effectively (+6.5 Def) to secure a positive overall impact (+1.9) despite being a non-factor offensively. His sheer size altered the geometry of the opponent's driving lanes, particularly during a crucial fourth-quarter defensive stand where he deterred three consecutive layups. Elite rim protection and disciplined drop coverage compensated for his lack of scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 28.9m -13.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Naz Reid 31.5m
17
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Punished defensive mismatches with decisive drives, fueling a robust +8.6 net impact. His ability to space the floor pulled the opposing rim protector out of the paint, opening up crucial cutting lanes during the second half. Active hands in the passing lanes (+9.2 Def) further amplified his value as a dynamic two-way catalyst.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +4.7
Defense +9.2
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 31.5m -15.0
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Mike Conley 11.9m
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Uncharacteristic struggles to contain dribble penetration (-0.4 Def) dragged his overall impact down to -1.9. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his lateral mobility in pick-and-roll actions, forcing the defense into scrambling rotations. While he kept the offense organized, the defensive bleed outweighed his steadying veteran presence.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 11.9m -5.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 11.9m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Erratic shot selection and a tendency to over-dribble resulted in a -1.3 net impact. A frustrating sequence of forced isolation threes completely derailed the second unit's offensive momentum. He failed to leverage his quickness to collapse the defense, settling instead for low-percentage perimeter looks that fueled opponent run-outs.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +53.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 11.9m -5.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Struggled to find the pace of the game, registering a -2.4 impact during his brief stint on the floor. A costly miscommunication on a baseline out-of-bounds play highlighted his struggles to integrate into the half-court defensive scheme. His inability to generate offensive separation made him a liability when the ball swung his way.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 8.7m -4.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
14
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Despite generating solid defensive value (+3.5), his overall impact slipped into the red (-1.0) due to scattered decision-making. A pattern of ill-advised closeouts allowed blow-by drives, neutralizing the value of his perimeter spacing. He bled points on the margins through unforced errors in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 36.3m -17.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 34.7m
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-21.4

Offensive rhythm completely collapsed, resulting in a brutal -21.4 net impact driven by heavily contested, low-quality shot attempts. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his handle during a disastrous second-quarter stint, forcing live-ball turnovers that ignited fast breaks. The resulting negative momentum completely overshadowed his baseline defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense -8.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 34.7m -16.6
Impact -21.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 7
S De'Aaron Fox 33.6m
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Forced perimeter attempts cratered his offensive efficiency and dragged his overall impact down to -5.8. A frustrating stretch of hero-ball in the third quarter led to long rebounds and easy transition points for the opposition. Even his high-level point-of-attack defense (+6.0) wasn't enough to offset the damage of those empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 33.6m -16.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 32.2m
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.9

Scoring efficiency masked a leaky defensive performance that ultimately dragged his net impact into the negative (-1.9). He struggled to contain dribble penetration during isolation matchups on the wing, forcing the defense into rotation. Those defensive breakdowns negated the momentum from his aggressive shot-hunting early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 32.2m -15.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
29
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.3

Utterly dominated the interior, anchoring a massive +20.3 net impact through sheer rim deterrence (+8.1 Def). His ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions as a drop defender completely short-circuited the opponent's offensive game plan. High-quality shot selection and relentless contest rates made him the undeniable engine of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +8.1
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 27.0m -12.9
Impact +20.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Defensive lapses (-0.7 Def) and poor rotational awareness sapped the value of his offensive production, leaving him with a -1.4 net impact. A recurring pattern of getting caught screen-watching allowed uncontested backdoor cuts that bled points. Those structural breakdowns offset the spacing benefits he provided on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 26.0m -12.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kornet 23.0m
6
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.6

Elite positioning around the basket fueled a stellar +10.6 impact score. He consistently won the battle of the boards through textbook box-outs against more athletic matchups, neutralizing second-chance opportunities. Efficient finishing on dump-offs and disciplined verticality at the rim maximized his value in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 23.0m -10.9
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Perimeter hesitancy and defensive miscommunications resulted in a -2.3 overall impact during his stint. A specific sequence where he lost his man on a flare screen epitomized his struggles to navigate off-ball actions. Those minor but costly errors negated the marginal spacing gravity he offered.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 11.9m -5.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 11.3m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

A complete lack of offensive rhythm (-8.4 Total) stemmed from forcing contested floaters early in the shot clock. He looked overwhelmed by the physicality of the opposing second unit, leading to rushed decisions and dead-end drives. While he competed on defense, the empty offensive possessions severely damaged the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 11.3m -5.5
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Managed to keep his head above water (+0.4) during a brief rotational cameo by executing fundamental defensive rotations. A crucial sequence of denying the entry pass to the post highlighted his veteran positioning. He avoided mistakes and kept the ball moving, fulfilling his role perfectly in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 4.0m -1.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0