GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 33.4m
14
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.2

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle metrics fueled a highly impactful performance. Dictating the pace of the game allowed him to use his speed to collapse the paint while blowing up passing lanes on the other end. The two-way motor never stopped running, completely overwhelming his matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +6.8
Defense +10.5
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 33.4m -20.2
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 31.1m
18
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.9

Despite strong hustle numbers and efficient finishing, poor defensive positioning dragged his overall impact into the red. Struggling to navigate screens allowed open driving lanes that compromised the entire defensive scheme. The playmaking was solid, but relentless targeting on the other end erased those gains.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 31.1m -18.7
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Defensive lapses and an inability to contain penetration severely undercut a decent perimeter shooting display. Getting beat off the dribble on the other end collapsed the defensive shell, giving back nearly everything generated on offense. The lack of physical resistance at the point of attack defined his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 28.4m -17.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
33
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+27.3

An absolutely dominant two-way performance driven by terrifying rim protection and lethal deep-range shooting. Pulling bigs out to the perimeter and hitting contested threes over them completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme. Massive hustle metrics reflect multiple sequence-altering blocks and deflections that demoralized the offense.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +26.1
Hustle +7.7
Defense +9.4
Raw total +43.2
Avg player in 26.4m -15.9
Impact +27.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 22.4m
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

A highly efficient scoring bump combined with solid defensive rotations resulted in a clean, positive shift. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns with timely cuts and spot-up looks punished over-helping opponents. Disciplined closeouts prevented easy perimeter looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 22.4m -13.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 25.0m
15
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.1

Surgical shot selection and elite finishing efficiency maximized his offensive footprint. Rarely forcing the issue meant taking exactly what the defense gave him and converting at a blistering rate. Solid positional defense ensured those offensive gains weren't surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 25.0m -15.1
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.7

An absolute cratering of offensive aggression destroyed his impact score, as opposing wing defenders entirely neutralized his drives. Failing to generate any downhill momentum allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint for everyone else. He was a complete non-factor in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 24.2m -14.6
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Luke Kornet 21.9m
7
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

Flawless execution of his role as a vertical spacer and drop-coverage anchor drove a massive positive rating. Deterring shots at the rim without fouling and finishing everything around the basket showcased high efficiency. His screen-setting and positional discipline were masterclasses in fundamental big-man play.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +12.4
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 21.9m -13.1
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

A massive, unexpected scoring surge built on opportunistic cuts and transition finishes swung his impact wildly into the positive. Capitalizing on defensive inattention generated highly efficient looks around the rim. Active hands on defense further amplified this breakout performance, creating havoc in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 14.4m -8.6
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Bleeding points during a disastrous short stint, his inability to protect the rim proved incredibly costly. Immediate targeting in the pick-and-roll upon checking in led to surrendering easy layups. The complete lack of offensive involvement made him a pure liability.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 6.5m -4.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Forced perimeter shots that badly missed the mark acted as quick turnovers during a brief, damaging shift. Rushed shot selection derailed the offensive flow and immediately ignited opponent fast breaks. Zero defensive resistance was provided to make up for the erratic bricks.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -133.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 5.0m -3.0
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely broke a sweat during a fleeting one-minute appearance. He lacked the floor time to influence the game's pace or structure.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 33.6m
30
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.8

High-volume shot creation yielded mixed results, as poor overall efficiency suppressed what could have been a massive impact score. Deep range kept the defense honest, but the sheer number of missed field goals led to opponent transition chances. Active defensive rotations barely kept his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 33.6m -20.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 26.5m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

Passive offensive positioning stunted his usual production and tanked his overall rating. Floating on the perimeter rather than attacking the paint meant he failed to put any pressure on the rim. The lack of defensive resistance couldn't offset the reduced scoring load.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 26.5m -15.9
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jusuf Nurkić 26.4m
20
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.7

Physical interior presence and active rebounding drove a solid positive impact by creating crucial second-chance opportunities. Anchoring the paint defensively allowed him to absorb contact well and deter drives. The high volume of inside touches kept the offense flowing despite a few missed bunnies.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 26.4m -15.9
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Svi Mykhailiuk 23.6m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Regression to the mean hit hard, with missed perimeter shots stalling offensive momentum and leading to long rebounds. When his jumper stopped falling, the spacing dynamic shifted and he became more of a decoy than an active threat. Minimal hustle contributions failed to tip the scales back in his favor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.6m -14.2
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cody Williams 23.5m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

A sharp drop-off in scoring efficiency resulted in empty possessions that dragged down his overall impact. His inability to convert on drives allowed the defense to leak out in transition, compounding a slightly negative defensive presence. He looked completely out of rhythm compared to his recent offensive surge.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 23.5m -14.1
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.3

Brutal perimeter shot selection tanked his offensive value, generating long rebounds that fueled the opposition's fast break. While his defensive metrics were surprisingly robust, the completely broken jumper ruined the team's spacing. Forcing too many contested looks instead of deferring to better options proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 31.8m -19.1
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

A sudden dip in shooting efficiency limited his offensive ceiling, but strong defensive positioning kept his overall impact positive. He compensated for the missed shots by altering attempts in the paint and securing the defensive glass. His rim protection proved more valuable than his scoring on this particular night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 25.6m -15.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Excellent defensive metrics were entirely undone by offensive passivity and likely turnover issues. Locking down his primary assignment wasn't enough to compensate for failing to generate pressure on the other end. The lack of overall aggression resulted in a neutral-to-negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 23.1m -13.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 20.7m
6
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Elite defensive rebounding and high-IQ hustle plays completely salvaged a dreadful shooting night. Controlling the defensive glass ended opponent possessions and sparked transition opportunities with pinpoint outlet passes. Veteran positioning masked the fact that he couldn't buy a bucket from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 20.7m -12.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A complete non-factor during his brief time on the floor, offering zero offensive gravity. Inability to get involved in the flow of the game resulted in empty minutes where the team essentially played four-on-five offensively. He was entirely invisible on both ends before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 5.2m -3.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0