GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
26
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Lethal perimeter marksmanship fueled a massive box score rating, as he consistently punished late closeouts from beyond the arc. However, his overall net score was dragged down by target-practice defense on the perimeter, where quicker wings repeatedly blew past him. The elite shot-making barely outpaced the defensive concessions.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 32.0m -18.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 29.0m
7
pts
14
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.1

Offensive invisibility severely capped his ceiling in this matchup, as he rarely established deep post position or demanded the basketball. He salvaged a neutral rating entirely through defensive switchability, blowing up several pick-and-roll actions on the perimeter. The lack of rim pressure, however, allowed the opposing defense to pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 29.0m -16.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Noah Clowney 28.2m
23
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

An unexpected barrage from the three-point line masked a highly inefficient night finishing around the basket. He struggled mightily through contact in the paint, missing multiple bunnies that suppressed his overall impact score. Solid weak-side rim protection ultimately kept his total rating hovering just above water.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 28.2m -16.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Drake Powell 24.4m
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.7

Disastrous shot selection and forced attempts in traffic completely cratered his net impact. Every time he touched the ball, the offense seemed to stall out, leading to highly inefficient, contested jumpers late in the clock. Even a handful of decent defensive rotations couldn't stop the bleeding from his offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 24.4m -14.3
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 19.0m
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Hesitancy to pull the trigger on open looks bogged down the team's offensive flow, resulting in a steep negative rating. When he did shoot, he settled exclusively for perimeter jumpers that failed to connect, offering zero downhill threat. His perimeter containment was adequate, but his offensive passivity was a major detriment.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 19.0m -11.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Nolan Traore 27.9m
8
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.6

Sloppy ball-handling and telegraphed passes into tight windows severely damaged his overall effectiveness. While he managed to knock down a couple of spot-up threes, the live-ball giveaways consistently sparked opponent fast breaks. His inability to navigate ball pressure at the point of attack was a glaring vulnerability.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 27.9m -16.2
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Thomas 24.6m
8
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.5

Tunnel vision and a steady diet of highly contested, off-the-dribble long twos absolutely torpedoed his value. He routinely ignored open teammates on the perimeter, opting instead to force the issue against double teams in the mid-range. This brand of stagnant, hero-ball offense fed directly into opponent transition opportunities, driving a catastrophic net score.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 24.6m -14.2
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.8

Relentless physicality on the interior generated a massive impact score in under twenty minutes of action. He carved out deep post position at will, converting high-percentage looks through traffic while generating crucial second-chance opportunities. His sheer force around the basket overwhelmed the opposing backup bigs.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 19.0m -11.0
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 18.8m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.7

Catching fire from the perimeter in a highly condensed window of playing time resulted in an explosive positive rating. He perfectly executed his role as a trail big, stepping into rhythm threes that completely warped the opposing defensive shell. This hyper-efficient scoring burst fundamentally changed the momentum of the second unit's minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 18.8m -10.8
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Terance Mann 16.9m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Floating through his minutes without leaving a distinct imprint on the game resulted in a perfectly mediocre rating. He was a step slow on closeouts and largely deferred to others on the offensive end, acting merely as a spacing decoy. A few timely hustle plays prevented his score from dipping further into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 16.9m -9.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Coby White 33.1m
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.0

A brutal negative impact score stems directly from sloppy ball security and forced perimeter attempts early in the shot clock. Even though he found some success attacking the paint, the empty possessions from live-ball turnovers bled transition points the other way. His defensive rotations were solid, but they couldn't mask the offensive hemorrhaging.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 33.1m -19.2
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 32.5m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

Defensive intensity carried his overall impact despite a sharp drop in scoring volume. By locking down the perimeter and generating deflections, he more than made up for a passive offensive night where he rarely looked at the rim. His relentless point-of-attack pressure set the tone for the defensive unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +9.7
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 32.5m -18.8
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

Masterful interior positioning and highly efficient finishing around the basket fueled a strong base impact. While his hustle metrics were relatively quiet, his ability to anchor the half-court offense through high-quality shot selection kept the floor spaced. He consistently punished mismatches in the post to stabilize the scoring attack.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 32.5m -18.8
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 31.9m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.2

Poor shot selection and bricked jumpers threatened to derail his night, but elite weak-side rim protection salvaged his overall grade. He heavily influenced the game through sheer activity level, racking up massive defensive and hustle metrics. A classic case of a player finding ways to dominate the margins when his primary scoring tools abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +6.6
Defense +13.2
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 31.9m -18.5
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
S Tre Jones 29.6m
11
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.8

Uncharacteristic passivity derailed his overall effectiveness, as he passed up multiple open driving lanes to reset the offense. The lack of aggressive downhill pressure allowed the opposing defense to rest, dragging down his overall impact despite efficient conversion rates. He struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end, compounding his quiet offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 29.6m -17.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 35.1m
14
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Anchoring the paint with superb verticality and timely rotations resulted in a dominant defensive grade. Offensively, he transformed into a pure stretch big, launching from deep to pull opposing rim protectors out of the lane. This combination of floor-spacing and elite paint deterrence drove a highly favorable net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +13.2
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 35.1m -20.4
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 20.5m
18
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Slashing relentlessly into the teeth of the defense generated a highly positive offensive rating. He completely abandoned the three-point line in favor of high-percentage floaters and transition layups, maximizing his touches in limited minutes. A lack of secondary hustle stats kept his score from entering the elite tier, but the scoring gravity was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 20.5m -11.9
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Snapping out of a brutal shooting slump, he provided a highly efficient offensive spark in limited action. He took only high-quality looks within the flow of the offense, completely eliminating the forced mid-range jumpers that had plagued his recent games. This disciplined shot selection yielded a tidy, positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 11.6m -6.6
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Failing to establish any shooting rhythm during his brief stint on the floor resulted in a noticeable drag on the offense. He tried to compensate for the cold streak by crashing the glass and diving for loose balls, generating a surprisingly high hustle rate. Ultimately, the inability to space the floor rendered his minutes a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 9.9m -5.8
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Relegated to deep reserve duty, he barely had time to break a sweat before returning to the bench. A minor defensive lapse during his brief rotational stint pushed his total impact slightly into the red. He functioned purely as a cardio placeholder in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.3m -1.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0