GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 35.2m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Elite defensive disruption was completely undone by an abysmal offensive showing and poor shot selection. He consistently settled for heavily contested perimeter looks instead of leveraging his size in the paint. The defensive versatility was brilliant, but the bricked jumpers stalled out multiple transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.9
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 35.2m -17.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 34.4m
17
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.1

High-volume playmaking and defensive rebounding barely kept his head above water amidst a brutal shooting slump. He forced too many contested mid-range pull-ups, clanking away valuable possessions. However, his willingness to crash the glass and find cutters mitigated the damage of his cold hand.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 34.4m -16.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

A horrific night from beyond the arc nearly erased the value of his aggressive downhill drives. He kept firing despite the cold streak, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent run-outs. Only his pesky on-ball defense and interior finishing kept him from falling into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 32.2m -15.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.1

Dominated the dirty work with elite hustle metrics and suffocating interior defense. He consistently beat his man to loose balls and converted high-percentage looks around the rim. His relentless motor on the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 31.8m -15.5
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Shead 30.3m
3
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.2

Incredible hustle and point-of-attack defense couldn't fully compensate for his offensive invisibility. He was a terror in the passing lanes, but his inability to knock down open perimeter shots allowed the defense to sag off completely. The playmaking was solid, yet the lack of scoring gravity stalled half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +8.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 30.3m -14.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

A sharp regression in scoring efficiency and missed perimeter assignments tanked his overall value. He struggled to anchor the backup frontcourt, frequently getting outmuscled on the block by stronger bigs. The lack of his usual offensive punch left the second unit searching for answers.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 20.8m -10.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
A.J. Lawson 17.2m
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Caught fire from the perimeter to provide a massive, unexpected scoring jolt off the bench. He stretched the floor beautifully and attacked closeouts with decisive energy. This sudden offensive explosion completely tilted the momentum during the non-starter minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 17.2m -8.5
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Injected timely offensive life into the second unit despite minor defensive miscommunications. He capitalized on broken plays, finding soft spots in the zone to convert efficiently. The quick burst of scoring broke a stagnant stretch, providing just enough lift to secure a positive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 12.6m -6.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 11.7m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

A catastrophic shooting night from deep completely neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. Opponents quickly realized he was cold and began aggressively stunting off him to crowd the paint. Compounding the offensive woes, he was repeatedly targeted and blown by on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 11.7m -5.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Faded into the background during his stint, failing to generate enough volume to impact the game positively. He was too passive when the ball swung his way, passing up decent looks to reset the offense. The lack of aggression allowed the defense to rest while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -48.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 7.9m -3.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Offered virtually nothing during a brief appearance, missing his only look and failing to record a single hustle stat. He was a step slow on defensive rotations, allowing easy middle penetration. A completely flat stint that dragged down the lineup's overall energy.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 1.9m -0.9
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Relied entirely on veteran defensive positioning to carve out a positive impact without taking a single shot. He expertly navigated screens and communicated switches, stabilizing the backline. His cerebral approach to team defense proved valuable in a short burst.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 1.9m -0.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by finishing his lone opportunity and playing disciplined defense. He didn't force any action, simply taking what the defense gave him in the flow of the offense. A quick, mistake-free shift that kept the team in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Joel Embiid 35.7m
27
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.9

Dominated the interior with a massive defensive presence that completely altered the opponent's shot profile at the rim. His two-way physical imposition fueled a massive positive swing, anchoring the drop coverage with elite rim protection. The combination of paint deterrence and steady offensive gravity dictated the game's entire tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +8.7
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 35.7m -17.5
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
S Tyrese Maxey 34.9m
33
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.7

An absolute offensive masterclass defined by relentless downhill attacks and elite shot-making from deep. He single-handedly broke the opposing defensive shell, generating massive box-score value that dwarfed his modest hustle metrics. His ability to hit contested pull-up jumpers in isolation broke the opponent's back and fueled a massive run.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.5%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +28.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 34.9m -17.0
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 33.5m
15
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.9

Lethal perimeter spacing drove a highly efficient offensive outing that masked an otherwise quiet defensive showing. He stretched the defense to its breaking point by punishing late closeouts from the corners with a quick release. The sheer gravity of his outside stroke opened up driving lanes for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 107.1%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 33.5m -16.4
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 28.6m
15
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.3

A heavy regression in shooting efficiency dragged down his overall impact, particularly struggling to connect from beyond the arc. Despite generating solid hustle metrics, the inability to find his usual scoring rhythm stunted the offense's ceiling. He settled for tough, contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint to draw contact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.4
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 28.6m -13.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 25.3m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Lack of offensive involvement severely capped his overall value despite chipping in effectively on the defensive end. His streak of highly efficient scoring nights came to a halt as he struggled to establish deep post position against a physical frontcourt. The defensive rotations were crisp, but the total absence of rim pressure proved costly.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 25.3m -12.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

A brutal negative swing driven by defensive lapses and a total lack of offensive rhythm. He failed to capitalize on transition opportunities and repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts. The sharp drop in his usual scoring volume left a glaring hole in the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.7
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 29.5m -14.3
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Poor point-of-attack defense allowed opposing guards to consistently break the paint, tanking his overall impact. While he hit a couple of timely shots, his inability to navigate screens compromised the entire defensive scheme. The lack of secondary playmaking further compounded his struggles to stay in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.8
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 15.6m -7.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite a slight uptick in scoring efficiency, a lack of physical engagement on the margins kept him in the red. He failed to generate any meaningful hustle plays or loose-ball recoveries during his stint. The defensive positioning was adequate, but he lacked the aggression needed to swing momentum on the glass.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 13.8m -6.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 12.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Completely neutralized on the offensive end, failing to register a single point and clogging the spacing. He offered minor resistance in the paint, but his inability to finish through contact or secure deep catches rendered him a liability. Opponents simply ignored him in the half-court, effectively turning the game into a 4-on-5.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 12.3m -6.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Managed to stay net-neutral in limited action by contributing just enough energy plays to offset defensive missteps. His scoring punch vanished, but he kept the ball moving and avoided costly mistakes. A quick burst of perimeter hustle prevented his brief stint from bleeding points.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.4
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 5.9m -2.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

A disastrous brief cameo defined by forced, bricked perimeter shots that immediately killed offensive momentum. He tried to spark the offense with quick triggers but only succeeded in handing the opponent long rebounds. The veteran's shot selection was highly questionable given the game state and flow.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 60.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Provided empty minutes with absolutely zero statistical production across the board. He was targeted on defense during his brief appearance, giving up easy penetration off the dribble. The lack of any tangible energy or hustle essentially made his stint a deadweight possession.

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 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Salvaged a positive impact entirely through sharp defensive rotations in a fleeting appearance. Even without attempting a shot, his ability to blow up a key pick-and-roll action provided immediate value. He executed the defensive scheme perfectly during his short run to keep the unit afloat.

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 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0