GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
2
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

An absolute clinic in point-of-attack defense single-handedly rescued his net rating from the depths. His relentless ball pressure and screen navigation completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. This defensive masterclass miraculously offset the damage of a catastrophic, empty-calorie shooting performance from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 13.7%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +10.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 29.4m -15.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Devin Booker 26.0m
17
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.3

With his jumper abandoning him, he salvaged his shift by pivoting into a pure facilitator role. His immense offensive gravity opened up passing lanes, allowing him to manipulate the defensive shell even without scoring. While the missed shots capped his ceiling, his high-IQ playmaking kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 26.0m -13.5
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 25.5m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.2

Catch-and-shoot mastery defined a stellar two-way performance that blew past his recent averages. He stretched the floor flawlessly while simultaneously locking down his assignments on the perimeter. His ability to seamlessly link the offense and defense made him the ultimate high-impact glue guy in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 25.5m -13.4
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dillon Brooks 23.5m
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers yielded mixed results, ultimately dragging down his net impact despite the scoring bump. While he connected on several momentum-swinging threes, his inefficiency inside the arc stalled out multiple possessions. Defensive gambles that didn't pay off further compounded his negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 23.5m -12.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 22.1m
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.6

Absolute dominance around the basket fueled a massive positive rating, driven by near-perfect shot selection and finishing. He completely controlled the paint, pairing elite rim-running with suffocating drop coverage. Opponents simply had no answer for his vertical spacing and physical interior presence.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 22.1m -11.6
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Floor spacing was the primary driver of his positive shift, as he punished defensive rotations with timely perimeter daggers. He paired his outside shooting with gritty closeouts and disciplined team defense. His willingness to sacrifice his body on drives perfectly complemented his spot-up value.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 23.6m -12.4
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.5

Brick after brick from the perimeter completely derailed the offense and led to a catastrophic net rating. While his motor never stopped running—evidenced by elite hustle metrics—the sheer volume of wasted possessions was too much to overcome. His shot selection routinely bailed out the opposing defense and fueled transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.9%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -9.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 22.0m -11.5
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Oso Ighodaro 20.1m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

Continuing a stellar run of interior efficiency, his surgical finishing around the rim anchored a highly productive stint. He combined this offensive reliability with fantastic switchability on defense, blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions. His knack for perfectly timed cuts and screens defined his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 20.1m -10.5
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 19.4m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Opportunistic scoring and smart off-ball movement allowed him to punch above his weight offensively. He capitalized on broken plays and transition leaks, ensuring his touches resulted in high-quality looks. A steady, mistake-free approach on both ends cemented his value as a reliable rotation piece.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 19.4m -10.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Forcing the issue from the perimeter proved costly, as a string of missed deep balls fueled opponent transition opportunities. He struggled to find the rhythm of the game, looking out of sync within the halfcourt sets. Despite adequate defensive positioning, the offensive inefficiency ultimately dragged his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 13.0m -6.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

A sudden burst of perfect shooting provided an immediate spark off the bench. He maximized every second of his brief appearance by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down open looks. This hyper-efficient microwave scoring completely flipped the momentum during his short shift.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 6.6m -3.5
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

A failure to establish any physical presence inside rendered his brief minutes highly ineffective. He was easily pushed off his spots and failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure. The resulting lack of gravity allowed the defense to completely ignore him and overload the strong side.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 5.3m -2.9
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Made the most of a garbage-time cameo by converting his lone opportunity and playing mistake-free basketball. He kept the ball moving and stayed disciplined in his defensive assignments. It was a brief but entirely positive blip on the radar.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 3.4m -1.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Tre Johnson 30.4m
19
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

High-volume scoring masked a deeply flawed floor game that bled points on the margins. Defensive lapses and a failure to secure 50/50 balls allowed opponents to dictate the tempo while he was out there. His buckets essentially acted as empty calories in a stint defined by poor team-wide execution.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 30.4m -15.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 28.4m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Consistent two-way effort anchored his positive net rating, highlighted by excellent perimeter containment and timely closeouts. He supplemented his defensive work with high-energy hustle plays that kept possessions alive. Even with streaky shooting, his athletic tools severely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 28.4m -14.8
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Alex Sarr 27.7m
19
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

A massive defensive footprint set the tone, as he constantly altered shots and shut down driving lanes to anchor the elite rating. He paired this rim protection with a highly decisive interior scoring surge that broke him out of a recent funk. This two-way dominance highlighted his ceiling when playing with physical force.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 27.7m -14.4
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Kyshawn George 26.3m
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-19.7

A disastrous offensive showing cratered his overall impact, driven by forced shots and a barrage of misses from the perimeter. While his defensive rotations yielded a slight positive margin, the sheer volume of empty possessions completely stalled the offense. His inability to find a rhythm defined a highly detrimental stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense -11.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total -6.0
Avg player in 26.3m -13.7
Impact -19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 6
S Khris Middleton 18.4m
2
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.1

Continuing a brutal multi-game shooting slump, his offensive gravity vanished entirely due to poor shot selection and clanked jumpers. He managed to salvage some value through active hustle plays and loose ball recoveries to prevent a total collapse. However, the complete lack of scoring punch made him a glaring net-negative in the halfcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 18.4m -9.5
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.0

Elite point-of-attack defense and smart ball movement drove a highly effective shift. Rather than forcing his own offense, he picked his spots efficiently and let his playmaking dictate the tempo. His knack for generating deflections and winning loose balls firmly established his positive two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 32.4m -16.8
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Sustained interior efficiency and relentless activity on the glass formed the foundation of his positive impact. He continues to thrive in a low-usage role, converting high-percentage looks and anchoring the weak-side defense. His ability to consistently win the physical battles in the paint defined his steady contribution.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 21.3m -11.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 19.5m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Taking a noticeable step back in offensive volume compared to his recent hot streak, he found other ways to influence the game. High-IQ defensive rotations and opportunistic efficiency ensured his minutes remained highly productive. It was a mature performance defined by taking what the defense gave him rather than forcing isolation plays.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 19.5m -10.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A sharp drop in offensive involvement limited his ability to shape the game on that end of the floor. While he provided solid rim deterrence and adequate hustle, his overall impact slipped into the red due to sluggish transition defense. The offense simply stagnated during his brief, low-energy stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -48.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 15.9m -8.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
AJ Johnson 9.8m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

An absolute disaster offensively, his stint was marred by wild shot attempts and a complete inability to finish at the rim. Wasting possessions at a rapid rate, he bled value every time he touched the ball. Opponents easily ignored him on the perimeter, completely blowing up the team's halfcourt spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -5.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total -5.2
Avg player in 9.8m -5.1
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Made a fleeting but positive appearance, primarily driven by sound positional defense in the paint. Though his offensive rhythm was disrupted by the limited run, he avoided costly mistakes. His brief shift was defined by simply holding the line and executing basic coverages.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +65.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 4.4m -2.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Despite not registering a single offensive statistic, he carved out a positive margin through pure effort. Active hands and quick defensive closeouts disrupted the opponent's rhythm during his short stint. It was a textbook example of impacting the game without needing the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +65.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 4.4m -2.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

A purely rotational cameo prevented him from extending his recent streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He simply logged cardio at the end of the rotation without enough time to influence the game in either direction. The slight negative score reflects a single bad team sequence while he was briefly on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0