GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 35.2m
12
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.8

An uncharacteristically cold shooting night completely derailed his usually dominant two-way impact. Despite solid defensive metrics, his forced shots and offensive stagnation dragged the starting unit down. Opponents successfully walled off the paint, turning him into an inefficient jump shooter.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 35.2m -21.1
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Onyeka Okongwu 32.9m
21
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Dominated the interior matchups, driving a highly positive score through aggressive finishing and relentless activity. Surging past his recent scoring averages, he consistently beat his man down the floor and converted in the pick-and-roll. His physical presence dictated the terms of engagement in the paint.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 32.9m -19.6
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.0

Overcame a spotty shooting night by generating massive value through secondary playmaking and elite hustle. His point-of-attack defense frustrated opposing guards, ensuring his overall impact remained firmly positive despite the missed jumpers. He kept the offensive engine humming by creating looks for others when his own shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -52.8
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 29.5m -17.7
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S CJ McCollum 26.8m
11
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.2

A brutal perimeter shooting display severely handicapped the offense and drove his impact into the red. His inability to stretch the floor cramped the spacing, making it a slog for the rest of the unit. The scoring efficiency plummeted well below his recent standard, stalling multiple rallies.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -48.0
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 26.8m -16.0
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Vít Krejčí 18.9m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

Clanked his way to a deeply negative impact, torpedoing offensive possessions with poor shot selection and missed open looks. The inability to convert from the field allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game repeatedly. A few hustle plays did nothing to stem the bleeding during his disastrous rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 18.9m -11.3
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 23.4m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Completely lost his rhythm, cratering his impact score by failing to provide his signature floor spacing. Missing every attempt from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. This sharp drop-off from his usual efficiency crippled the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 23.4m -14.0
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Exploded out of a recent slump by finding open seams in the defense and converting with high-level efficiency. His off-ball movement warped the opposing scheme, generating a massive positive box score impact. Surprisingly sturdy defensive metrics proved he was locked in on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 22.6m -13.5
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Strong defensive rotations were ultimately undone by clunky offensive execution and missed finishes around the rim. The inability to convert high-percentage looks stalled out several possessions, dragging his net score slightly below neutral. He showed flashes of rim protection but remains too raw offensively to drive winning minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 19.0m -11.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Scraped out a slightly positive impact by leaning into his defensive assignments when his jumper wasn't connecting. Showing a bit more offensive aggression than usual kept the defense honest even with the missed shots. He played a steady, mistake-free brand of basketball that stabilized the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 13.1m -7.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Asa Newell 9.1m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Capitalized on a minutes bump by attacking the basket with purpose, significantly outperforming his recent production. His decisive finishing in the paint drove a highly positive box score impact and energized the bench unit. He kept things simple offensively, taking only what the defense gave him.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 9.1m -5.4
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Acted as a pure facilitator during a quick stint, generating all of his positive impact through crisp ball movement. Bypassing his own scoring entirely to set up teammates maximized his limited floor time with high-IQ reads. Active hands and hustle ensured his brief appearance was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +109.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 4.9m -3.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Barely registered a pulse on the game's outcome, drifting through a short shift with minimal involvement. Knocking down his only look maintained his recent hot shooting, but he offered absolutely zero resistance or hustle on the other end. This was a classic cardio session where he neither helped nor hurt the overall team structure.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +109.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 4.9m -2.9
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
9
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.5

Despite solid defensive metrics, his overall impact plummeted due to offensive passivity and empty possessions during key stretches. The spacing he provided didn't translate to team success, as the offense stagnated while he was on the floor. A step up from his recent scoring baseline wasn't enough to offset the negative lineup data.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 31.9m -19.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sam Hauser 30.3m
30
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.0

An absolute flamethrower from deep, generating massive value through pure perimeter spacing and shot-making. Beyond the outside barrage, his surprisingly stout defensive rotations and active hands elevated his overall footprint. This explosive outing shattered his recent baseline production.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 10/21 (47.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +5.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 30.3m -18.2
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 29.5m
41
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.0

Elite impact was driven by relentless downhill pressure and massive shot volume, forcing the defense to collapse. Even with a frosty perimeter stroke, his defensive engagement and sheer offensive gravity kept the team in the plus. He maintained his recent scoring tear by attacking mismatches relentlessly.

Shooting
FG 14/30 (46.7%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 49.3%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +27.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +36.6
Avg player in 29.5m -17.6
Impact +19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Derrick White 25.4m
7
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
+11.3

Operated as a masterful floor general, driving a massive positive impact through elite playmaking rather than his own scoring. His point-of-attack defense and constant hustle completely disrupted the opposing backcourt. He sacrificed his own shot volume to spoon-feed teammates all night.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +63.2
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +9.7
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 25.4m -15.3
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 23.6m
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Anchored the interior with exceptional defensive presence and highly efficient rim-running. His positive impact stems from knowing his role perfectly, converting high-percentage looks while continuing a streak of hyper-efficient finishing. He kept the paint locked down during his shifts to stifle opponent drives.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +72.3
+/- +39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 23.6m -14.2
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.0

Suffered a severe negative impact score largely due to bleeding points on the defensive end over a heavy minute load. While he found better offensive rhythm than his recent outings, his inability to contain dribble penetration compromised the team's shell. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation sequences.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 30.0m -18.0
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Perimeter shot-making provided a solid baseline, but his overall influence hovered just below neutral due to defensive limitations. The scoring punch was somewhat hollow, as the team struggled to string together stops during his minutes. A lack of rim pressure kept him from truly tilting the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 23.6m -14.1
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Luka Garza 12.4m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Maximized a brief rotation stint with highly efficient touches and active positioning around the basket. Though his scoring output dipped significantly from his recent surge, his steady defensive positioning and hustle kept the second unit afloat. Proved he doesn't need high volume to positively influence the game flow.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 12.4m -7.5
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Provided decent rim deterrence, but his absolute zero usage on offense clogged the spacing. Refusing to even attempt a shot allowed the opposing frontcourt to freely roam and double-team other threats. The defensive stability wasn't enough to overcome playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -64.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 12.0m -7.3
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Jordan Walsh 10.6m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Registered a ghost-like performance where a complete lack of offensive involvement tanked his lineup value. Failing to register a single point halted his recent momentum and allowed defenders to completely ignore him in the half-court. The minimal hustle plays couldn't salvage an otherwise empty shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +37.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 10.6m -6.3
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Barely moved the needle in a brief cameo, though he did manage to break a recent scoreless drought. His impact hovered near zero as he simply filled space without generating any meaningful hustle or defensive events. A strictly placeholder performance dictated by garbage time or rotation filler.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -103.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 5.8m -3.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a very short stint, continuing a brutal offensive slump. Missing his only look and failing to anchor the glass led to a quick hook from the coaching staff. The defensive metrics couldn't hide the overall disjointedness of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -109.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 4.9m -2.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1