GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 39.3m
42
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+18.1

Absolute offensive mastery driven by pristine shot selection and an ability to exploit drop coverage at will. He compounded this damage by aggressively digging down on post-ups, generating deflections that fueled devastating transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 15/24 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +27.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +39.8
Avg player in 39.3m -21.7
Impact +18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
S Peyton Watson 35.3m
21
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Heavy foul trouble and a series of sloppy offensive fouls on drives severely depressed his overall value. While he found success slashing to the rim, the sheer volume of possessions he gave away via charges kept his impact firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 35.3m -19.5
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Aaron Gordon 32.0m
8
pts
10
reb
11
ast
Impact
-2.4

Playmaking from the elbows was sharp, but his reluctance to shoot open jumpers allowed the defense to pack the paint. A brutal stretch of missed defensive assignments in transition during the fourth quarter ultimately dragged his rating below zero.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 32.0m -17.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 29.0m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Costly defensive miscommunications and late rotations perfectly canceled out his efficient spot-up shooting. A specific pattern of losing his man on baseline cuts prevented him from posting a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 29.0m -16.1
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Pickett 22.2m
5
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.0

Clanking multiple wide-open perimeter looks cratered his offensive efficiency and allowed the opposition to leak out early. He fought hard over screens defensively, but the poor shot quality he generated torpedoed his overall score.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 22.2m -12.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
30
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

High-volume perimeter scoring masked a severe lack of resistance at the point of attack on defense. His tendency to die on screens allowed straight-line drives, nearly erasing the immense value of his hot shooting streaks.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 35.7m -19.8
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bruce Brown 24.7m
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.6

Completely lost his assignments off the ball, resulting in a disastrous defensive rating that ruined his overall impact. His over-aggressiveness jumping passing lanes led to back-cuts and easy layups, overriding any minor hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense -3.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 24.7m -13.7
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Zeke Nnaji 16.0m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Provided a sturdy interior presence by consistently walling off drivers without fouling. His disciplined box-outs against much larger matchups secured crucial defensive stops, driving a quietly effective stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 16.0m -8.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a brief stint, looking hesitant to pull the trigger on catch-and-shoot opportunities. A bad read on a closeout surrendered an open corner three, tipping his brief appearance into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 38.9m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.3

Bleeding value through a combination of live-ball turnovers and forced attempts against set defenses. His tendency to over-dribble into traffic during the third quarter stalled ball movement and directly led to negative-impact empty trips.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 38.9m -21.6
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyshawn George 31.9m
29
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+18.3

Phenomenal two-way showing fueled by elite defensive rotations and relentless hustle on loose balls. His ability to consistently break down the primary point-of-attack defender created high-value shot quality for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +22.7
Hustle +7.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 31.9m -17.6
Impact +18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 30.7m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.3

Shot selection was the primary culprit for a disastrous impact rating, as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range pull-ups early in the clock. This volume of empty possessions completely derailed the offense's rhythm, overshadowing his acceptable effort tracking back in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 30.7m -16.9
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Alex Sarr 28.2m
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Value was dragged down by poor positioning in pick-and-roll drop coverage, allowing easy floaters to the opposition. While he generated some positive momentum with timely weak-side contests, a handful of illegal screens completely erased those gains.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 28.2m -15.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Khris Middleton 27.1m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite efficiently converting his looks, his overall impact slipped into the red due to a string of careless perimeter turnovers that ignited transition opportunities. He struggled to stay in front of quicker wings during the second half, bleeding value on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 27.1m -15.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Anchored the second unit's success by executing flawless closeouts and generating multiple deflections in the passing lanes. His disciplined weak-side positioning limited second-chance opportunities, driving a highly efficient defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 26.3m -14.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Passive offensive positioning allowed his defender to sag off and muck up the spacing for primary ball-handlers. Even with decent effort on the offensive glass, his inability to command gravity on the perimeter resulted in a net negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 21.0m -11.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Capitalized on deep post seals and excellent rim-running to generate incredibly high-efficiency looks. His verticality at the rim deterred several drives during a crucial second-quarter stretch, cementing a strong two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 19.8m -11.0
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Riley 16.2m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A few rushed attempts from the perimeter negated the value he brought as an on-ball pest. He showed flashes of effective gap help, but ultimately gave back points by biting on pump fakes and committing shooting fouls.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 16.2m -8.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0