GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Caleb Martin 28.8m
14
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.5

Relentless off-ball movement and timely baseline cuts generated highly efficient looks at the rim. He fortified his positive impact with excellent point-of-attack defense, fighting over screens to deny dribble penetration. His ability to capitalize on defensive breakdowns without demanding the ball was the glue for the starting lineup.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 28.8m -19.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden Hardy 24.8m
19
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.8

Shot selection was the primary culprit for his negative impact, as he repeatedly jacked up ill-advised, early-clock threes. While the sheer volume yielded some makes, the misses acted as live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. His defensive apathy on the perimeter only compounded the damage from his inefficient gunning.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 24.8m -17.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

Sizzling interior finishing was completely negated by brutal defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness. He routinely lost his man on backdoor cuts, bleeding points in the half-court despite his own offensive surge. The scoring efficiency was a mirage that masked how often he was targeted and exposed on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 24.7m -16.9
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Dwight Powell 24.5m
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Excellent pick-and-roll coverage and rim deterrence were undermined by a lack of offensive rebounding and poor spacing. He clogged the paint during key half-court possessions, making it difficult for guards to slash effectively. Despite converting his few attempts, his inability to stretch the floor or secure second-chance points kept his impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 24.5m -16.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 23.8m
22
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.2

Dominated the game through sheer physical two-way play, suffocating opposing wings to generate a massive defensive rating. He turned defense into instant offense by jumping passing lanes and finishing through contact in transition. This was a masterclass in utilizing size and anticipation to completely derail the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +9.1
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 23.8m -16.3
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 23.5m
10
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Anchored the paint with terrifying verticality, deterring drives and racking up a stellar defensive impact. He generated massive value purely through hustle and positioning, cleaning the glass to limit opponents to one shot per possession. His flawless execution of the dunker spot role provided crucial offensive efficiency without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +8.4
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 23.5m -16.0
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-5.6

Excellent court vision masked a disastrous defensive performance where he repeatedly died on screens, compromising the entire defensive shell. He forced several contested floaters in traffic instead of resetting the offense, leading to empty possessions. The playmaking value was entirely erased by his inability to stay in front of his man at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 23.3m -16.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
26
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.9

Caught fire from deep by expertly utilizing pin-down screens to create separation, driving a massive positive impact. His defensive metrics surged as he locked down his assignment in isolation, proving he could still impact the game on both ends. This vintage performance completely stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 23.2m -15.9
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Miles Kelly 22.0m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

A one-dimensional offensive approach hurt his overall value, as he contributed nothing inside the arc or on the glass. By strictly hovering on the perimeter and failing to attack closeouts, he made the offense predictable and stagnant. His inability to stay attached to shooters on the defensive end further dragged his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 22.0m -15.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Provided crucial frontcourt stability by executing crisp closeouts and maintaining verticality at the rim. He capitalized on defensive attention drawn by the guards, confidently stepping into trail threes to punish drop coverages. This was a textbook example of a role player maximizing his touches while executing defensive assignments flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 21.5m -14.8
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 31.0m
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

A steep negative total impact suggests severe off-ball lapses and likely live-ball turnovers that aren't captured by his decent shooting efficiency. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, routinely losing his man in the half-court. The scoring production was completely hollowed out by defensive miscommunications during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 31.0m -21.3
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 30.4m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Negative overall impact was heavily driven by poor shot selection from the perimeter, as clanking contested threes fueled opponent transition opportunities. Despite solid defensive rotations that boosted his defensive metrics, his offensive inefficiency negated those stops. He repeatedly forced isolation jumpers against set defenses rather than moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 30.4m -20.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Isaiah Collier 28.8m
10
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite facilitation was entirely offset by erratic perimeter shooting and a high volume of unforced passing errors into traffic. Defenders routinely went under screens, daring him to shoot, which bogged down the half-court offense when he couldn't connect from deep. His inability to punish drop coverage kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 28.8m -19.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Keyonte George 28.8m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite highly efficient scoring, his negative overall impact points to severe struggles containing dribble penetration at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently blew past him in isolation, forcing the defense into scramble mode and yielding open corner threes. The offensive output simply couldn't cover the defensive bleeding he caused on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 28.8m -19.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyle Filipowski 20.0m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Impact cratered due to an inability to establish deep post position, leading to forced, off-balance hooks that triggered fast breaks the other way. After a dominant five-game stretch, opposing bigs successfully pushed him off his spots and neutralized his interior gravity. His frustration manifested in poor transition defense and costly reach-in fouls.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 20.0m -13.7
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
15
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.1

A massive defensive impact from hounding ball-handlers was dragged into the red by poor decision-making from beyond the arc. He settled for early-clock, contested triples instead of utilizing his burst to attack the rim. While his scoring volume spiked compared to recent games, the inefficiency of those perimeter attempts killed offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 31.5m -21.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
27
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.9

Elite shot-making completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme, driving a massive positive impact score. He consistently punished switches by burying contested midrange pull-ups and relocating perfectly along the perimeter. His offensive gravity opened up the floor for everyone else, turning a standard scoring night into a dominant offensive clinic.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +25.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 27.6m -19.1
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.3

Broke out of a severe scoring slump by exploiting mismatches in the mid-post and making decisive cuts to the rim. His positive impact was anchored by brilliant positional defense, using his length to disrupt passing lanes without gambling. He stabilized the second unit's offense by playing methodically and refusing to force bad shots.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/6 (16.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.4
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 26.1m -17.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Offensive invisibility and bricked spot-up attempts tanked his overall value despite respectable weak-side rim protection. He hesitated on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to recover and stalling out possessions. The lack of assertiveness on offense made him a liability whenever the team needed floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 15.8m -10.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1