GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 29.0m
16
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.1

Plagued by ill-advised fouls in the penalty that handed the opposition free points and disrupted the team's defensive structure. He scored with excellent efficiency out of isolation sets, but his over-aggressiveness on the perimeter constantly put the defense in compromise. The hidden cost of those fouls ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 29.0m -16.9
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.4

Shredded drop coverage with a lethal mid-range pull-up game, punishing the defense every time they sagged off the screen. His point-of-attack pressure was equally disruptive, forcing opposing guards to initiate their offense much further out than comfortable. That relentless two-way aggression sparked a dominant run that heavily skewed his net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +49.1
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 27.5m -16.0
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dwight Powell 26.6m
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.6

Anchored the interior with masterful verticality, altering numerous shots at the rim without committing fouls. His hard rim-runs in the pick-and-roll collapsed the defense, creating wide-open perimeter looks for his teammates even when he didn't touch the ball. This combination of defensive discipline and offensive gravity resulted in a stellar two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +61.4
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +8.0
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 26.6m -15.5
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Max Christie 25.8m
22
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.7

Capitalized on late defensive rotations by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down in-rhythm perimeter shots. He also provided excellent weak-side rim protection for a guard, breaking up several lob attempts during a crucial third-quarter stretch. This explosive scoring punch combined with high-IQ defensive reads drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 25.8m -15.0
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Caleb Martin 21.3m
3
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.6

Generated tremendous hidden value through relentless offensive rebounding and diving for loose balls, keeping multiple dying possessions alive. His scoring was virtually nonexistent, but his willingness to do the dirty work disrupted the opponent's rhythm. Those extra-effort plays directly translated to a positive net impact despite a brutal shooting performance.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +46.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +11.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 21.3m -12.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 21.4m
9
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Clogged the driving lanes for his own guards by failing to clear the dunker spot in a timely manner. While he secured the glass effectively and contested shots well, his lack of offensive awareness resulted in stalled possessions. Those spacing and timing errors quietly sapped the team's offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 21.4m -12.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

Struggled mightily to navigate high ball screens, consistently dying on picks and forcing the bigs into unfavorable switch mismatches. Offensively, he was too hesitant to probe the paint, settling for safe perimeter passes that allowed the defense to rest. This combination of defensive vulnerability and offensive stagnation severely damaged his net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 20.5m -11.9
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.8

Warped the entire defensive scheme with his relentless off-ball movement, forcing miscommunications and late switches. His lethal catch-and-shoot execution punished every slight hesitation by his primary defender. Beyond the scoring barrage, his sheer gravity opened up massive cutting lanes that fueled the team's half-court efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.3%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 20.1m -11.6
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided crucial connective tissue by making the extra pass and executing flawless defensive rotations on the weak side. He rarely forced his own offense, instead focusing on setting bone-crushing screens that freed up the primary scorers. This unselfish, detail-oriented approach kept his impact slightly positive in a low-usage role.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 19.7m -11.4
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 17.3m
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

Derailed offensive possessions with a heavy dose of contested, early-clock isolation jumpers that essentially functioned as live-ball turnovers. His tunnel vision prevented him from finding open shooters when the defense collapsed on his drives. The combination of poor shot selection and lack of defensive resistance created a massive negative swing during his stint.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 36.2%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 17.3m -10.1
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Miles Kelly 10.8m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Injected immediate energy off the bench by hunting his shot aggressively in transition before the defense could set. His willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the floor, opening up driving lanes during a stagnant offensive stretch. Even with a few missed heat-checks, his floor-spacing gravity was a clear net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 10.8m -6.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 37.2m
29
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.7

Completely dictated the tempo through elite point-of-attack defense and relentless downhill pressure. His ability to fight over screens and blow up dribble hand-offs suffocated the opposing backcourt. This two-way dominance resulted in a massive positive swing, as he turned defensive stops directly into early-clock scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +24.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.5
Raw total +38.3
Avg player in 37.2m -21.6
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 37.0m
18
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.4

His overall impact cratered due to severe defensive lapses and live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent transition runs. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, negating the value of his offensive output. The massive gap between his positive box metrics and dismal total impact highlights a costly lack of situational awareness.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 37.0m -21.5
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Filipowski 29.3m
13
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Shifted seamlessly into a high-post hub role when his typical scoring avenues were shut off, generating high-quality looks for cutters. His defensive anchoring was the real story, as he consistently deterred rim attempts and secured contested defensive boards to kill opponent possessions. Even with a significant dip in scoring volume, his physical interior presence kept his overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 29.3m -16.9
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cody Williams 27.6m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Passivity on the perimeter allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the paint, severely limiting the team's offensive flow. While his on-ball defensive metrics remained positive, his inability to navigate off-ball screens exposed the weak side during crucial second-half stretches. This lack of aggression ultimately dragged his net impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 27.6m -16.0
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaiah Collier 22.2m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.7

Poor pick-and-roll navigation consistently put the frontcourt in rotation, bleeding points during his shifts. He managed to find his spots offensively, but stalled the half-court flow by over-dribbling into traffic. Those hidden offensive stalls and defensive breakdowns completely erased the value of his shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -41.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.2m -12.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
25
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Overcame a frigid night from beyond the arc by aggressively attacking closeouts and finishing through contact in the mid-range. His physical drives forced defensive collapses, compensating for the poor perimeter shot selection. Strong positional rebounding and timely weak-side rotations further stabilized his positive impact during tight stretches.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 29.7m -17.2
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-11.8

Severe spacing issues crippled the offense during his minutes, as defenders aggressively sagged off his perimeter spots to pack the paint. Although he facilitated well, his predictable passing angles led to telegraphed live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. The complete lack of a scoring threat made him a significant liability in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 26.6m -15.4
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Repeatedly targeted in isolation by quicker guards, leading to defensive breakdowns that tanked his overall rating. While he found unusual success scoring on methodical post-ups, his lack of foot speed in transition defense gave up multiple easy layups. The defensive bleed far outweighed his surprisingly efficient offensive night.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 18.7m -10.9
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, floating on the perimeter without setting meaningful screens or cutting with purpose. This extreme passivity allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the primary ball-handlers. Consequently, his minutes were a net negative simply due to playing four-on-five basketball on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 11.7m -6.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1