GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 41.3m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

A disastrous on/off differential completely tanked his overall rating despite decent shooting efficiency. He consistently stalled the offense with isolation-heavy possessions that bled the shot clock and resulted in forced, late-possession bailouts. While his individual defensive metrics looked passable, his inability to orchestrate team flow led to massive opponent runs while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 41.3m -21.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Scottie Barnes 40.6m
24
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.8

Overcame a clunky perimeter shooting night by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass and generating second-chance opportunities (+7.1 hustle). His sheer physical force in the paint compensated for the lack of outside touch, bullying smaller defenders on switches. This brute-force approach dictated the tempo, even if the overall efficiency left something to be desired.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +7.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 40.6m -20.9
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jamal Shead 38.6m
15
pts
4
reb
13
ast
Impact
+0.6

Dictated the offensive flow with elite table-setting, consistently manipulating the pick-and-roll to find open shooters. However, his hesitance to finish at the rim and poor overall shooting efficiency capped his overall ceiling. His relentless ball pressure and loose-ball recoveries (+7.9 hustle) barely kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 38.6m -19.9
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ochai Agbaji 36.3m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Found his perimeter stroke after a brutal four-game slump, but gave the value right back through poor rotational awareness on the other end. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy layups that negated his offensive burst. This defensive indiscipline during critical fourth-quarter stretches ultimately dragged his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 36.3m -18.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

Snapped a prolonged streak of hyper-efficient finishing by rushing his reads in traffic and forcing contested looks at the rim. His defensive positioning remained solid (+4.6), but his offensive mistiming disrupted the team's spacing. The inability to convert high-leverage paint touches ultimately resulted in a net-negative shift.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 34.9m -18.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Gradey Dick 27.4m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Shattered a miserable shooting slump by hunting transition trailing threes and capitalizing on scrambled defensive closeouts. His constant off-ball motion warped the opponent's zone coverage, opening up driving lanes for his teammates. This sudden injection of elite floor spacing completely transformed the geometry of the offense.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 27.4m -14.2
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Provided a reliable release valve in the half-court with excellent off-ball movement and decisive finishing around the basket. He exploited slower bigs by slipping screens early, generating high-percentage looks without needing to dominate the ball. This crisp, mistake-free execution perfectly complemented the primary creators during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 22.2m -11.5
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
A.J. Lawson 12.9m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Contributed virtually nothing to the offensive flow, looking hesitant and passing up semi-contested looks to reset the offense. His lack of aggression allowed his defender to play free safety and clog the driving lanes for others. This passive approach completely derailed the second unit's momentum, resulting in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 12.9m -6.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Managed to find the scoring column after a prolonged dry spell, but his defensive liabilities (-1.7) quickly erased those gains. He struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, routinely giving up open catch-and-shoot opportunities on the perimeter. The coaching staff had to pull him early due to his inability to contain dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 10.8m -5.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 42.3m
31
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brutal shot diet from beyond the arc cratered his overall efficiency, turning high usage into empty possessions. While his sheer volume inflated his baseline metrics, the constant clanking from deep allowed the opponent to ignite transition breaks. His playmaking gravity remains elite, but forcing contested step-backs ultimately resulted in a net-negative shift.

Shooting
FG 10/27 (37.0%)
3PT 2/15 (13.3%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.3m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 42.3m -21.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Ivica Zubac 38.5m
16
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Anchored the interior with a massive physical presence, generating high-value extra possessions through relentless activity on the glass (+5.5 hustle). His rim protection deterred drivers all night, forcing the opposition into low-percentage perimeter bailouts. This two-way paint dominance masked occasional perimeter rotation lapses and drove a highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 38.5m -20.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kobe Sanders 36.7m
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite a highly efficient scoring surge that nearly doubled his recent average, hidden mistakes dragged his overall impact into the red. His stout point-of-attack defense (+7.3) kept the bleeding to a minimum, but empty possessions off the ball ultimately neutralized his value. His inability to generate looks for others forced the offense into stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.3
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 36.7m -19.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 33.5m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.6

Completely flipped the game's momentum with elite ball pressure and disruptive passing lane jumps (+7.8 defense). His sudden perimeter shot-making punished drop coverages that dared him to shoot, breaking his recent slump in spectacular fashion. The combination of high-motor loose ball recoveries and opportunistic scoring made him the ultimate two-way catalyst.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +7.4
Defense +7.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 33.5m -17.3
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 5
S Nicolas Batum 6.1m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

A brief, scoreless rotation stint was marred by offensive invisibility and rushed perimeter attempts. He provided a slight defensive buffer (+2.5) during his minutes, but his complete lack of gravity allowed the defense to aggressively help off him. This continues a troubling pattern of offensive zeroes when slotted into the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -109.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 6.1m -3.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.7

Delivered a masterclass in two-way wing play, suffocating his primary assignments to drive an elite defensive rating (+11.6). His decisive, no-hesitation slashing punished closeouts perfectly, doubling his usual offensive output without forcing a single bad look. This ironman performance stabilized the entire rotation during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 86.4%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.8m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +11.6
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 45.8m -23.6
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Christie 20.4m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by attacking closeouts with newfound aggression and finishing through contact. His pristine shot selection maximized every touch, turning minimal usage into a massive offensive spark off the bench. This sudden burst of perimeter confidence completely altered the opponent's defensive rotations in the second half.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 20.4m -10.4
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggled to make a tangible imprint on the game, floating on the perimeter rather than setting punishing screens. While he managed to avoid glaring defensive mistakes, his lack of offensive gravity allowed rim protectors to camp in the paint. This passive approach during the middle quarters ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 13.6m -7.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 13.1m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Looked a step slow in drop coverage, routinely getting exploited by quicker guards coming off screens (-1.3 defense). His inability to establish deep post position or stretch the floor effectively resulted in a stagnant half-court offense during his stint. The sharp decline from his recent offensive rhythm left a glaring hole in the second unit's frontcourt production.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 13.1m -6.8
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Maximized a brief rotational window by applying relentless ball pressure at the point of attack (+3.3 defense). He kept the offensive flow moving with quick, decisive swings rather than pounding the air out of the ball. This disciplined, mistake-free stretch provided exactly the stabilizing presence the bench unit required.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 9.9m -5.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Brown 5.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A stark departure from his recent string of highly efficient outings, as he failed to find the rhythm of the game during a disjointed first-half stint. He was a non-factor in the pick-and-roll, failing to create separation or draw defensive attention. The resulting offensive stagnation quickly forced him back to the bench with a negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +77.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 5.2m -2.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0