GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
34
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.3

Elite dribble penetration relentlessly collapsed the defense, driving a massive +16.3 net impact. He dictated the terms of engagement on every possession, pairing high-efficiency isolation scoring with suffocating defensive intensity. The sheer volume of unassisted shot creation overwhelmed the opponent's perimeter shell.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 38.0%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 33.7m -16.2
Impact +16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Jalen Williams 30.4m
20
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Relentless downhill attacking defined a highly efficient performance that drove a strong positive impact. By completely eschewing the three-point line, he methodically picked apart the mid-range and restricted area. Excellent defensive engagement further amplified his value during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 30.4m -14.5
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Wiggins 26.3m
5
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

Stellar point-of-attack defense was completely overshadowed by a frigid shooting night from the perimeter. Clanking multiple wide-open spot-up opportunities stalled out several half-court sets. His inability to make the defense pay for helping off him resulted in a surprisingly poor net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 26.3m -12.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 25.2m
8
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Elite rim protection and verticality anchored the team's defensive shell, driving his positive impact despite a muted scoring night. He rarely forced the issue offensively, focusing entirely on screening and spacing the floor. His presence alone altered countless drives, proving his worth goes far beyond shot-making.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 25.2m -12.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 23.0m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

A defensive masterclass at the point of attack completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. He paired this suffocating pressure with flawless shot selection, burying the few perimeter looks he was given. This quintessential 3-and-D performance yielded a massive +5.9 net rating in limited action.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +8.6
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 23.0m -11.0
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

Subtle breakdowns in off-ball defensive rotations dragged his overall impact into the red despite a solid offensive showing. He navigated the pick-and-roll effectively but struggled to contain dribble penetration when isolated on an island. The underlying metrics suggest his minutes coincided with the opponent's most efficient scoring stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 30.2m -14.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.8

Taking charges and battling for loose balls generated a massive +5.6 hustle rating that anchored his elite overall impact. Even with a streaky shooting night from deep, his willingness to do the dirty work inside kept the momentum firmly in his team's favor. He operated as the ultimate connective tissue, seamlessly bridging the gap between the starters and the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +62.5
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 22.8m -10.9
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Alex Caruso 19.9m
13
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.7

Opportunistic cutting and highly efficient perimeter shooting sparked a massive surge off the bench. He generated extra possessions through his trademark defensive anticipation, blowing up several dribble handoffs. His two-way connectivity was the primary catalyst for a dominant second-unit run.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +60.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 19.9m -9.6
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 14.3m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Flawless execution as a floor spacer punished the defense every time they lost track of him in transition. Burying all of his perimeter looks provided a crucial release valve for the team's primary slashers. He didn't need high volume to leave a distinct, positive imprint on the game's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 14.3m -6.9
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him virtually invisible on that end of the floor, allowing defenders to aggressively cheat into the driving lanes. Compounding the issue, he uncharacteristically bled points on defense, resulting in a poor -5.2 net rating. His reluctance to attack closeouts stalled multiple half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 14.2m -6.9
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 36.2m
20
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.2

High-level defensive engagement and relentless hustle metrics masked a slightly negative overall impact. He showcased excellent shot selection from deep, punishing defenders who went under screens in the pick-and-roll. The rookie's two-way activity was palpable, even if the final net rating didn't fully capture his on-ball disruption.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +6.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 36.2m -17.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Relentless activity on the margins fueled a strong +6.9 hustle rating, keeping his overall impact in the green. He settled exclusively into a floor-spacing role, with nearly all of his attempts coming from beyond the arc. His defensive rotations proved crucial in maintaining a positive net rating during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 34.0m -16.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 33.7m
14
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite highly efficient shot-making when he did attack, a lack of overall volume limited his offensive footprint. His negative total impact stems from passive stretches where he failed to dictate the tempo against set defenses. A quiet defensive showing further prevented him from swinging the momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 33.7m -16.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Opposing schemes successfully limited his scoring volume, forcing a sharp decline from his recent dominant offensive stretch. However, he still managed to anchor the interior effectively, generating a solid +11.8 box score metric through sheer gravity. His willingness to abandon the three-point shot and operate closer to the basket kept his efficiency afloat.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 27.7m -13.4
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 23.7m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

A brutal shooting slump cratered his overall impact to a team-worst -11.7. Blanking entirely from the perimeter severely cramped the floor for the primary creators, allowing defenders to pack the paint. Despite minor positive contributions in hustle and defense, his inability to convert open looks derailed offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 23.7m -11.4
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 25.6m
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

While he knocked down his perimeter looks at a high clip, defensive lapses kept his overall impact in negative territory. He struggled to stay in front of quicker assignments, forcing the defense into scramble mode too often. The scoring efficiency simply couldn't outpace the points given back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 25.6m -12.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kornet 20.3m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Exceptional positional defense and rim deterrence drove a highly impactful +8.7 total rating in limited minutes. He consistently altered shots in the paint without fouling, anchoring the second unit's defensive shell. This interior stability allowed the perimeter defenders to press higher up the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 20.3m -9.7
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Poor shot selection from the perimeter dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive flow and fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. A lack of defensive resistance compounded the damage during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 20.3m -9.8
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Firing blanks from beyond the arc completely neutralized his value as a floor spacer. His inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for others. With minimal contributions in the hustle categories, his stint on the floor was a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 13.4m -6.5
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A brief cameo at the end of a quarter yielded a slightly negative impact due to an empty offensive possession. He barely had time to break a sweat before being subbed back out. There was simply not enough runway to establish any rhythm or defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.7m -0.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Minimal court time prevented him from leaving any real footprint on the game. He managed a slight positive blip on defense during a single transition stop. Otherwise, this was essentially a cardio session in a fleeting rotation spot.

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 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.7m -0.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Deployed strictly for a situational defensive possession, he executed his assignment without error. A quick contest on the perimeter bumped his defensive metric slightly into the green. The microscopic sample size left his overall impact perfectly neutral.

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 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0