GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jalen Pickett 34.0m
12
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.6

Efficient shooting and steady playmaking generated a strong box-score profile, but hidden mistakes elsewhere kept his total impact in the red. He likely gave back his offensive gains through untimely defensive lapses or transition breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 34.0m -16.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Spencer Jones 31.4m
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Outstanding point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle were completely undone by his inability to threaten the defense offensively. Opponents simply ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the spacing and ruined his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg -46.6
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 31.4m -15.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Peyton Watson 28.8m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Elite defensive metrics were entirely squandered by a disastrous shooting performance and poor shot selection. Forcing contested looks and bricking every attempt from deep negated all the value he provided as a stopper.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -57.3
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 28.8m -14.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S DaRon Holmes II 25.9m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Settling for perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint severely damaged his efficiency and overall impact. While he managed to stretch the floor occasionally, the sheer volume of missed outside looks dragged the offense down.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 25.9m -12.5
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 25.2m
16
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Traded his usual high-volume scoring load for an uncharacteristically gritty, hustle-driven performance. Exceptional activity on loose balls and efficient interior finishing drove a highly positive net rating despite a quiet night from deep.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -50.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 25.2m -12.2
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 22.9m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Struggled to finish through contact in the paint, resulting in a highly inefficient offensive outing. The inability to convert high-percentage looks inside ultimately outweighed his modest contributions on the glass.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.9m -11.1
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Hunter Tyson 20.9m
1
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.3

An absolute nightmare of a shooting performance completely cratered his net impact. Forcing eight misses from beyond the arc killed offensive momentum and left his overall rating in ruins.

Shooting
FG 0/9 (0.0%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 5.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 20.9m -10.0
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

A massive, unexpected scoring eruption fueled a dominant positive rating. Clinical perimeter shot-making and opportunistic defense defined a breakout performance that completely caught the opponent off guard.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 19.9m -9.6
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 17.8m
9
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Continued a streak of hyper-efficient offensive performances by picking his spots perfectly within the flow of the offense. Combined with suffocating perimeter defense, his disciplined shot selection resulted in a stellar two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 17.8m -8.6
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Chilly perimeter shooting completely neutralized any value he brought to the floor. When his outside shot isn't falling, the lack of secondary playmaking makes it nearly impossible for him to post a positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 13.3m -6.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 26.7m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Solid offensive generation was entirely neutralized by a lack of defensive resistance, dragging his overall impact into the red. His steady perimeter shooting kept the floor spaced, but he failed to make a tangible mark on the other end of the court.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 26.7m -13.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 24.7m
4
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

His usually elite finishing around the rim abandoned him tonight, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. While he remained active on the glass and provided decent defensive resistance, the missed bunnies inside ultimately tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 24.7m -12.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 23.8m
23
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Blistering perimeter shot-making drove a massive box-score advantage, continuing a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. The offensive firepower easily masked his defensive lapses, cementing a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense -1.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 23.8m -11.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 22.9m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

A stark drop in offensive aggression resulted in a massive dip from his usual scoring output, severely limiting his overall influence. Despite strong defensive metrics and active hustle plays, his reluctance to hunt shots kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 22.9m -11.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 19.4m
10
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.3

Despite a significant dip in scoring volume and continued perimeter shooting struggles, his defensive engagement was off the charts. High-level hustle plays and disruptive defensive rotations drove a highly positive overall impact without needing to dominate the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +62.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 19.4m -9.5
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 25.6m
0
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.7

An absolute offensive zero whose inability to knock down open looks completely cratered his net impact. Elite hustle metrics and solid defensive positioning were rendered meaningless by his total lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 25.6m -12.4
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.1

Utter dominance in the paint fueled an astronomical net impact score. He paired near-perfect finishing around the rim with elite hustle and rim protection, putting together a masterclass in two-way efficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +34.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 23.3m -11.4
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Exceptional shot selection and clinical finishing inside the arc anchored a highly productive shift. He supplemented the efficient scoring with disciplined defensive rotations, ensuring his minutes were overwhelmingly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 22.0m -10.7
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.9

A cold night from beyond the arc was entirely offset by relentless rim pressure and high-motor defensive plays. His willingness to do the dirty work and generate transition opportunities kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 20.4m -9.9
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 13.1m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Marginal offensive involvement and a lack of disruptive hustle plays resulted in a distinctly negative overall rating. He simply floated on the perimeter for most of his minutes, failing to tilt the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 13.1m -6.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 12.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Minimal offensive aggression and a few costly defensive breakdowns dragged his rating down during a quiet stint. He struggled to find any rhythm as a creator, ultimately bleeding value while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 12.0m -5.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Made the most of a brief rotation stint by knocking down his lone perimeter look and keeping the ball moving. His veteran positioning on defense ensured he survived his minutes with a modest positive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 6.2m -3.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0