GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 38.0m
24
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite an aggressive slashing game that yielded high-percentage looks inside, a flurry of untimely turnovers kept his rating in the red. Forcing passes into tight windows when driving the lane gifted the opponent easy transition run-outs. Better situational awareness with the ball would have made this a standout performance.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 38.0m -18.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S P.J. Washington 31.0m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Bricking numerous open spot-up opportunities severely damaged his offensive rating and overall score. While his versatile switching on the defensive end was highly effective, it couldn't mask the sheer volume of wasted scoring chances. Finding his rhythm from the corners is critical to balancing his impact.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 37.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 31.0m -15.2
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden Hardy 28.5m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

His negative score stemmed primarily from poor shot selection beyond the arc. Hijacking the offense with early-clock, contested jumpers fueled the opponent's transition attack. Although he showed good energy chasing loose balls, the offensive inefficiency was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 28.5m -14.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 17.9m
6
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Through relentless work on the glass and flawless rim-running, he created a highly efficient performance. Instead of forcing his own offense, he capitalized entirely on dump-offs and putbacks. Solid rim protection anchored his valuable two-way presence.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 17.9m -8.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cooper Flagg 14.8m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Settling for contested long-range looks instead of attacking the basket resulted in a heavily negative impact. A stark drop-off in shot quality and finishing through traffic short-circuited several possessions. The rookie will need to learn how to manufacture easier looks when his jumper isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 14.8m -7.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
20
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless downhill attacking and a knack for drawing contact drove a highly productive stint. Consistently collapsing the defense opened up the floor, while his high-energy closeouts on the perimeter stifled opposing shooters. This aggressive, two-way effort perfectly illustrated his value as a spark plug.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.4m -12.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Forcing heavily contested looks off movement completely derailed his offensive efficiency. The inability to connect from deep stalled the team's half-court flow and led to long rebounds for the opposition. He must diversify his attack when the perimeter shot is heavily guarded.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 23.3m -11.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Martin 23.1m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.3

An absolute masterclass in two-way energy was highlighted by devastating cuts and elite point-of-attack defense. Turning deflections into immediate fast-break points generated massive value and completely swung the game's momentum. This was a textbook example of how off-ball movement and hustle can break a rating model.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +8.0
Defense +7.7
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 23.1m -11.5
Impact +19.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Textbook screen-setting and disciplined positioning allowed him to quietly dominate his minutes. He avoided costly fouls while providing sturdy interior defense against larger matchups. By playing entirely within himself, he generated a highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 18.1m -9.0
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Struggling to navigate ball screens defensively left him constantly trailing plays, bleeding points on the other end. Offensively, a few forced floaters in traffic dragged down his efficiency. He needs to improve his physical resistance at the point of attack to stay viable.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -44.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 15.3m -7.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A disastrous shooting cameo completely tanked his brief time on the floor. Rushing multiple perimeter looks out of rhythm essentially handed empty possessions to the opponent. Slowing down and letting the game come to him is a necessary adjustment.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 4.6m -2.3
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 38.1m
33
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.3

Exploiting drop coverage with crisp pull-up jumpers drove a massive offensive rating. He kept the defense entirely off-balance through a masterful display of shot-making in the pick-and-roll. Furthermore, high-level hustle plays on loose balls padded his already stellar overall impact.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 38.1m -18.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Spencer Jones 32.2m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Live-ball turnovers completely erased the value of his highly efficient finishing. Despite showing aggressive flashes as a cutter, his inability to protect the basketball in traffic proved too costly. Cleaning up his decision-making is mandatory if he wants to stay on the floor in tight rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 32.2m -15.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Peyton Watson 30.6m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

By committing offensive fouls and delivering sloppy passes out of double teams, he dragged his overall impact into the red. His downhill aggression yielded a solid scoring bump, but the resulting empty possessions gave opponents too many transition opportunities. Tightening his handle in the half-court remains the clear next step.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 30.6m -15.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Gordon 29.9m
22
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

Dominant interior positioning and disciplined shot selection fueled a highly positive rating. Rather than forcing bad looks, he consistently punished mismatches in the post to maximize his touches. A focused defensive effort further solidified his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 29.9m -14.8
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Pickett 27.6m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Struggling to convert around the rim severely capped his offensive value tonight. Multiple forced floaters ended in empty trips, yet his relentless point-of-attack defense provided a major boost to the second unit. If he can develop a more reliable floater, his overall metrics will quickly stabilize.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.6m -13.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

Heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers tanked his efficiency and dragged down his overall score. Even though he provided excellent weak-side defensive rotations to generate stops, the sheer volume of clanked threes stunted offensive momentum. Better shot discipline would easily flip his net impact into the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 35.8m -17.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 23.6m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Careless ball security and poorly timed fouls completely negated his efficient finishing at the rim. He repeatedly killed offensive flow by driving into crowded paint areas without an exit strategy. Cleaning up those unforced errors is essential for him to regain his usual two-way effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 23.6m -11.7
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 17.5m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Active hands in the passing lanes and timely weak-side contests salvaged a quiet offensive outing. Because he struggled to finish through contact around the basket, several possessions were wasted. Still, his defensive discipline ensured he remained a net positive during his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 17.5m -8.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Making the most of a brief cameo, he spaced the floor effectively and stayed within his role. A quick trigger on a catch-and-shoot opportunity showed his growing confidence from the perimeter. By avoiding defensive mistakes, he kept his limited minutes firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 4.6m -2.3
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0