GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Dwight Powell 35.5m
5
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

Off-the-charts hustle metrics kept his overall impact slightly positive despite low offensive volume. He specialized in doing the dirty work, setting bruising screens and keeping possessions alive with relentless tip-outs. While he didn't command the ball, his physical presence in the paint wore down opposing frontcourts.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +11.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 35.5m -18.1
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cooper Flagg 34.9m
27
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.0

An absolute two-way masterclass defined by suffocating weak-side rim protection and highly efficient shot creation. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions, translating defensive stops into immediate transition advantages. His ability to dictate the game's tempo on both ends resulted in a stratospheric net impact score.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.3
Raw total +36.8
Avg player in 34.9m -17.8
Impact +19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Max Christie 34.3m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc heavily penalized his overall score, completely neutralizing his excellent defensive contributions. He generated immense value by navigating screens and contesting shots, but his bricked perimeter looks consistently bailed out the opposing defense. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately made him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 34.3m -17.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 32.4m
22
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+18.6

Elite playmaking and relentless defensive pressure at the point of attack drove a massive positive impact. He expertly manipulated defensive rotations to create high-value looks for teammates while completely shutting down his primary assignment. His knack for jumping passing lanes generated crucial live-ball turnovers that swung the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +22.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.8
Raw total +35.2
Avg player in 32.4m -16.6
Impact +18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaden Hardy 21.7m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

High-volume, low-efficiency shot selection dragged his net impact into the negative despite a decent raw scoring output. He repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock, short-circuiting the offensive flow and allowing the opponent to set their defense. A lack of hustle plays and defensive resistance further compounded the damage from his empty-calorie scoring.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 21.7m -11.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Blistering perimeter execution stretched the defense thin, driving a strong box score impact that broke him out of a recent slump. His gravity off the ball opened up massive driving lanes for teammates, though defensive limitations against quicker guards slightly capped his total score. Hitting timely catch-and-shoot daggers from the corner defined his highly effective stint.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 26.8m -13.7
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.2

Excellent offensive initiation and a surprising scoring punch were nearly offset by defensive lapses and a lack of hustle plays. He picked apart drop coverages with precise pocket passes, but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. The resulting defensive breakdowns kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 22.2m -11.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 11.8m
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Active rim protection and solid hustle plays in limited minutes drove a highly efficient positive impact. He effectively deterred drives into the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. His ability to secure contested rebounds in traffic provided crucial stability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 11.8m -6.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Miles Kelly 10.8m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Perfect shooting efficiency couldn't mask the negative impact of his defensive struggles and complete lack of hustle plays. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, bleeding points on the perimeter and failing to generate any disruptive events. His inability to contribute outside of spot-up shooting ultimately resulted in a net negative performance.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 10.8m -5.4
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

A completely invisible offensive performance combined with defensive passivity resulted in a disastrous net rating. He failed to make an imprint on the game, passing up open looks and struggling to stay attached to his man off the ball. The team bled points during his brief stint due to a lack of weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -6.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -6.2
Avg player in 9.8m -5.0
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
BKN Brooklyn Nets
28
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Sizzling perimeter execution drove a massive box score impact, stretching the defense to its breaking point. However, his overall net score was dragged down slightly by defensive rotations and off-ball fouls. His ability to punish drop coverage from the outside ultimately defined his positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 33.1m -17.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Terance Mann 29.1m
5
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.5

Offensive passivity and missed perimeter looks tanked his overall value despite respectable defensive metrics. He consistently passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the half-court offense and forcing late-clock bailouts. A solid effort navigating screens on defense couldn't offset the dead weight he brought to the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 29.1m -15.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 29.1m
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

A massive spike in offensive aggression compared to his recent slump fueled a strong box score rating. His elite hustle metrics suggest he generated crucial extra possessions through loose ball recoveries and timely tip-outs. Despite struggling from deep, his interior activity against smaller matchups kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 29.1m -14.8
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 25.3m
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.9

High-percentage finishing around the rim anchored a stellar offensive rating. His ability to anchor the paint and contest shots at the summit drove a positive defensive impact, though foul trouble likely capped his total ceiling. He consistently punished switches by sealing smaller guards deep in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 25.3m -13.0
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Drake Powell 25.2m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc severely cratered his net impact despite decent hustle metrics. Bricking multiple perimeter looks led to long rebounds that ignited opponent transition opportunities. His inability to stay in front of quicker wings on the perimeter further compounded his negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 25.2m -12.9
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.6

Dominant positioning on the glass generated massive second-chance opportunities, driving an elite overall impact score. He consistently outmuscled opposing bigs on the interior, creating a bruising physical tone that wore down the defense. His ability to secure contested boards and immediately initiate offense was the defining factor of his stint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 22.7m -11.6
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Nolan Traore 21.9m
6
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.7

Errant perimeter shooting and stalled offensive initiation heavily penalized his overall rating. Although he provided excellent point-of-attack defense by fighting over screens, his inability to space the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint. The offense consistently bogged down during his minutes due to his hesitance to attack closeouts.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 21.9m -11.1
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite a surprising scoring surge compared to recent outings, poor efficiency from deep and a lack of hustle plays dragged his total impact into the red. He struggled to stay connected to shooters on the perimeter, allowing costly weak-side cuts. The raw production was a mirage masking empty-calorie possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 19.8m -10.2
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Danny Wolf 18.9m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

A sharp regression in offensive execution resulted in a heavily negative net impact. He forced heavily contested looks in the paint, leading to empty possessions and opponent run-outs. While his rim protection metrics remained strong, his inability to capitalize on offensive mismatches doomed his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 18.9m -9.6
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jalen Wilson 14.9m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Settling for low-quality perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the rim tanked his offensive efficiency. A lack of secondary playmaking and minimal hustle contributions meant he provided very little value when his shot wasn't falling. His tendency to get caught ball-watching on defense allowed back-door cuts that further hurt his net score.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 14.9m -7.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1