GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 37.5m
12
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.4

Elite rim-running and vertical spacing put constant pressure on the interior defense. His ability to switch onto guards and recover to the paint stifled multiple offensive actions. Highly efficient finishing and relentless rim protection drove a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 37.5m -21.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
23
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-volume, low-efficiency shooting from beyond the arc acted as an anchor on his overall value. He forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense and wasting offensive possessions. Strong defensive rotations and rebounding effort managed to pull his net impact back to near-neutral despite the brick-heavy performance.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 36.6m -21.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Noah Clowney 27.9m
16
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

A sudden scoring burst masked underlying issues with ball security and defensive positioning. While he capitalized on finishing opportunities around the rim, costly turnovers in transition likely dragged his total score down. The offensive uptick was ultimately neutralized by mistakes that fueled opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 27.9m -16.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Terance Mann 26.3m
10
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.8

Playmaking and efficient scoring were completely undermined by a porous defensive showing. He consistently lost his man off the ball and struggled to navigate screens, giving up easy driving lanes. The defensive bleeding heavily outweighed his offensive facilitation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.8
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 26.3m -15.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Drake Powell 24.8m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Phenomenal hustle metrics highlight a relentless motor, but loose ball security likely eroded his overall value. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort on the glass, yet gave them right back with sloppy decision-making in traffic. A balanced shooting night wasn't quite enough to overcome the negative plays that stalled momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 24.8m -14.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities and attacked closeouts with decisive aggression. Exceptional hustle plays, including key deflections and contested rebounds, amplified his efficient scoring. He provided a massive spark off the wing by seamlessly blending offensive execution with high-energy defense.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.6%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 23.5m -13.4
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Nolan Traore 22.1m
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact severely hampered his offensive rhythm. He drove into traffic without a plan, leading to empty trips and likely live-ball turnovers. The lack of defensive playmaking meant he couldn't recoup the value lost on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 22.1m -12.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Provided instant offense with decisive cuts and confident perimeter shooting. His defensive intensity disrupted passing lanes, creating transition opportunities that he quickly converted. A highly efficient and energetic burst that significantly tilted the floor during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 15.2m -8.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 13.4m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Stretched the floor effectively as a trailer, pulling the opposing big away from the rim. His defensive positioning was sound, altering shots without fouling during his brief stint. A steady, mistake-free performance resulted in a marginally positive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 13.4m -7.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 12.7m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

An absolute zero on the offensive end, failing to connect on any field goal attempts and stalling the offense. His inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint. Despite adequate defensive effort, his offensive struggles created a massive drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 12.7m -7.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 34.0m
27
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Scorching perimeter shot-making shattered his recent slump and warped the opposing defense's geometry. The sheer gravity of his deep shooting opened up driving lanes for teammates, easily offsetting minor defensive lapses. A massive offensive surge defined his night, driving a highly positive overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 34.0m -19.5
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Devin Booker 33.1m
24
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

A heavy reliance on mid-range isolation kept the offense afloat but capped his overall efficiency ceiling. He essentially traded baskets with his primary matchup, failing to generate a distinct mathematical advantage despite the scoring volume. The lack of three-point generation and potential defensive concessions resulted in a surprisingly neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 33.1m -19.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mark Williams 29.0m
16
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.3

Interior dominance defined his shift, anchoring the paint with exceptional rim protection and flawless finishing. Massive hustle metrics highlight a relentless effort on the glass, generating crucial extra possessions. He completely shut down opponent drives, cementing an elite two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +6.2
Defense +9.3
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 29.0m -16.6
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 28.6m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.7

Despite efficient perimeter shooting, his overall footprint cratered due to severe hidden costs like live-ball turnovers or transition defensive breakdowns. He consistently lost his assignment on the perimeter, bleeding points and forcing the defense into rotation. The resulting massive negative impact reflects a player who gave back far more than he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 28.6m -16.4
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
22
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.2

An unexpected offensive explosion from the perimeter completely tilted the game's momentum. Elite shot selection and punishing of defensive rotations yielded a massive spike in scoring efficiency. Solid point-of-attack defense further cemented a stellar, highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +29.4
Avg player in 28.2m -16.2
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.7

Cold streaks from the floor and poor shot selection dragged down his overall effectiveness. He settled for heavily contested looks on the perimeter, resulting in empty possessions that stalled the offense. Defensive vulnerabilities were exposed, compounding the damage of his inefficient volume.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 30.3m -17.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 19.0m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

A stark drop in offensive involvement rendered him largely invisible on that end of the floor. Without his usual scoring punch, his minor contributions in hustle and defense weren't enough to keep his impact out of the red. He struggled to find his rhythm within the offensive flow, leading to a highly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 19.0m -10.9
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Dunn 17.5m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball led to a steep decline in his usual offensive production. He failed to leverage his athleticism in transition or on cuts, resulting in a stagnant half-court presence. The negative impact reflects a player who was largely a spectator during his shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 17.5m -10.1
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Minimal offensive aggression and a failure to generate rim pressure resulted in a highly passive outing. While he provided adequate effort on the margins, the lack of tangible playmaking severely limited his utility. His minutes were characterized by an inability to exploit defensive gaps.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 16.6m -9.6
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Made the most of a brief cameo by executing his limited role without making mistakes. A quick bucket and solid positional defense provided a stabilizing presence during his short stint. He effectively held the fort without bleeding any value.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 3.6m -2.1
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0