GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
29
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.9

Surgical isolation scoring and elite foul-drawing ability drove a massive offensive impact. He consistently broke down the primary line of defense, forcing secondary rotations that he expertly punished with pinpoint kick-out passes. His steady, methodical pace neutralized the opponent's attempts to speed up the game, dictating the terms of engagement on nearly every possession.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 32.0m -18.0
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 31.7m
16
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.3

Absolute dominance as a rim protector anchored a massive net-positive performance. He altered countless shots in the paint, completely erasing the opponent's interior attack while securing critical defensive rebounds to end possessions. Offensively, his ability to trail the play and hit trailing jumpers forced opposing bigs out of their comfort zones.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +10.5
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 31.7m -17.8
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jalen Williams 29.3m
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

Relentless rim pressure and highly efficient interior finishing fueled a strong positive showing. He consistently beat his primary defender off the bounce, collapsing the defense and creating high-quality looks at the basket. His active hands in the passing lanes generated extra possessions that kept the momentum firmly on his team's side.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 29.3m -16.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 25.7m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

A frigid shooting night completely undermined his otherwise excellent defensive and hustle contributions. He generated tremendous havoc on the perimeter, but his inability to knock down wide-open corner threes allowed the defense to aggressively trap the ball-handlers. The missed shots essentially functioned as live-ball turnovers, fueling opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 25.7m -14.4
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 19.3m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

Offensive passivity and an inability to punish defensive gaps severely dragged down his overall rating. While his point-of-attack defense remained solid, his reluctance to shoot allowed the opposition to completely ignore him and overload the strong side. The resulting spacing issues bogged down the entire half-court offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 19.3m -10.9
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Aggressive downhill attacking and a knack for finishing through contact highlighted a productive offensive showing. He consistently found the soft spots in the midrange, punishing drop coverages with a reliable floater game. While his perimeter shot wasn't falling, his ability to generate unassisted offense kept the scoreboard ticking during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 26.8m -15.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

Elite defensive versatility was the primary driver of his positive impact, as he seamlessly switched across multiple positions to blow up offensive sets. He supplemented his lockdown defense with timely perimeter shooting, extending his streak of efficient scoring nights. His ability to hit contested late-clock threes bailed out several stagnant offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 18.9m -10.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 18.8m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Lethal floor spacing and quick-trigger shooting punished the defense for over-helping on drives. He demanded constant attention on the perimeter, opening up massive driving lanes for his teammates simply by standing in the corner. A surprisingly stout defensive effort ensured he wasn't giving back the points he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 18.8m -10.7
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 14.5m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Provided a stabilizing presence with timely shot-making and mistake-free basketball during his rotation minutes. He capitalized on broken plays, hitting a crucial momentum-swinging three while maintaining his usual defensive discipline. The low-usage, high-efficiency output was exactly what the second unit needed to tread water.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 14.5m -8.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and brilliant positional defense defined his highly impactful stint. He consistently beat offensive players to their spots, drawing momentum-killing charges that frustrated the opposition's driving lanes. His willingness to do the dirty work—setting bone-jarring screens and fighting for loose balls—far outweighed his modest shooting volume.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 14.5m -8.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Failed to generate any offensive gravity during a brief, scoreless stint that dragged down his overall rating. While he battled admirably on the glass and provided solid positional defense, his complete lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to freely roam. The resulting offensive bottleneck made it difficult for his unit to generate quality looks.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -49.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 6.6m -3.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A rushed, missed three-pointer was the only notable event during his fleeting garbage-time appearance. He failed to establish any rhythm or defensive presence in less than two minutes of action. The slightly negative score reflects a disjointed shift where he couldn't find the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 1.8m -1.0
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 36.9m
23
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite a scorching shooting night from deep, his negative overall impact suggests defensive lapses or empty-calorie scoring when the game was already decided. The high scoring volume masked underlying rotational mistakes and a failure to secure critical 50/50 balls during key momentum shifts. His perimeter gravity was excellent, but he gave back too much value on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 36.9m -20.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S Bam Adebayo 31.6m
6
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

A brutal offensive showing cratered his impact score, as he struggled to finish through contact and settled for contested midrange jumpers. While his defensive anchoring remained elite, the missed bunnies and offensive stagnation allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game. His inability to punish mismatches in the post stalled out several crucial half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.7
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 31.6m -17.8
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 31.1m
13
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+1.9

Elite playmaking and surgical precision running the offense generated a massive box score impact. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages masterfully, consistently finding the roll man while punishing drop coverage with timely floaters. A few defensive miscommunications slightly dampened his overall grade, but his offensive orchestration was the engine of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 31.1m -17.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 27.6m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.5

Massive hustle metrics and relentless defensive energy drove his elite overall impact. He extended his streak of efficient shooting to five games, taking high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense. His constant off-ball movement forced defensive rotations that didn't always show up as assists but created high-value scoring chances.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +9.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 27.6m -15.5
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Tyler Herro 27.1m
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.0

Bleeding value on the defensive end completely erased a highly efficient scoring output. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, failing to fight through screens and allowing straight-line drives to the rim. The lack of secondary hustle plays meant his offensive production was essentially a wash against what he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.6
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 27.1m -15.2
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Highly efficient shot selection and excellent spacing drove a strong positive impact during his minutes. He capitalized on defensive closeouts with decisive drives and knocked down catch-and-shoot opportunities with confidence. His length was disruptive in the passing lanes, helping to spark several transition breaks that tilted the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 25.3m -14.3
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.6

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his overall rating, as he failed to assert himself or hunt his own shot during a passive stint. The lack of aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. Without his usual downhill attacking to collapse the defense, his floor time resulted in a stagnant, easily defendable scheme.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 20.0m -11.4
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Dru Smith 17.4m
6
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite a massive efficiency spike compared to recent outings, his overall impact remained slightly negative due to defensive limitations. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack, forcing teammates into emergency rotations. The crisp ball movement he provided was largely offset by the defensive compromises required to keep him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 17.4m -9.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 16.4m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A failure to secure the defensive glass negated his solid rim-running and interior finishing. He was frequently pushed out of rebounding position by smaller, more physical opponents, leading to costly second-chance points. While his length provided a decent rim-deterrent, the inability to close out defensive possessions kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 16.4m -9.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Managed to squeeze significant positive value out of a microscopic stint by executing perfectly within his role. He immediately spaced the floor, hit a quick perimeter shot, and didn't make any rotational mistakes. It was a textbook example of a micro-shift where a player does exactly what is asked without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 66.7%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely registered during his brief appearance, essentially running cardio at the end of the rotation. He provided a slight defensive bump but generated zero offensive gravity or hustle metrics. The negative score reflects a completely empty shift where he failed to influence the game in any tangible way.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

A quick garbage-time cameo yielded a single passing read but nothing else of substance. He kept the ball moving but didn't have enough runway to impact the game's broader dynamics. The neutral rating accurately reflects a placeholder shift with no real stakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Logged fewer than two minutes of action, providing a marginal defensive presence without touching the ball offensively. He stayed attached to his man during his brief run, avoiding any glaring mistakes. The flatline impact score is the natural result of an uneventful, blink-and-you-miss-it appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0