GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 35.7m
16
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite hyper-efficient shooting, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses and a failure to generate disruptive plays. He was too easily screened out of actions on the perimeter, allowing opponents to capitalize on advantageous matchups.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 35.7m -19.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.6

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and relentless defensive ball pressure defined a gritty, high-motor performance. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and generated crucial extra possessions, easily offsetting a streaky shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +10.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 35.4m -19.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 34.7m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.8

A catastrophic shot selection profile cratered his impact score, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely negated his scoring output, stalling the team's momentum during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 9/25 (36.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 34.7m -19.0
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 33.7m
10
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Elite rim protection and dominant rebounding fundamentally altered the opponent's shot profile. He served as an impenetrable backline anchor, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass to secure a highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.7
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 33.7m -18.5
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Julius Randle 30.5m
30
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.4

Bully-ball drives and a scorching shooting touch overwhelmed the interior defense, driving a massive offensive rating. While his defensive effort waned at times, his sheer scoring gravity and playmaking out of double teams dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 30.5m -16.7
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Naz Reid 28.6m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.3

A lethal combination of floor-spacing and decisive attacks off the catch completely fractured the opposing frontcourt defense. He provided a massive spark of energy, anchoring a highly successful stretch of basketball with both scoring gravity and surprisingly stout defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.2
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 28.6m -15.5
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
Mike Conley 14.3m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

An inability to create separation or connect from deep severely hampered the half-court flow during his minutes. While he remained active defensively, the offensive stagnation he presided over ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 14.3m -7.8
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 12.3m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Poor spacing and defensive miscommunications led to a rough stretch that heavily penalized his impact score. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, frequently leaving shooters open and compromising the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 12.3m -6.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 11.8m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Errant perimeter shooting and an inability to break down his primary defender stalled the second-unit offense. His quick-trigger decisions often bailed out the defense, leading to a negative stint despite decent defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 11.8m -6.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A brief, uneventful cameo yielded a slightly negative rating due to a lack of tangible production. He was essentially a placeholder on the floor, failing to register any significant actions on either end during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -62.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Inefficient finishing around the basket dragged down his net impact, squandering multiple high-value scoring opportunities in the paint. Even with respectable defensive positioning, the sheer volume of missed interior looks severely limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 31.1m -17.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Coby White 29.9m
22
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.3

High scoring volume masked a heavily negative impact driven by poor shot selection and a diet of contested perimeter looks. While he brought energy in transition, the sheer number of wasted half-court possessions ultimately dragged the team's efficiency into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 29.9m -16.4
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Matas Buzelis 27.9m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

Decent defensive and hustle metrics kept his overall impact slightly positive despite a lack of offensive aggression. His willingness to compete on the perimeter masked some passivity, as he settled into a complementary spacing role rather than forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 27.9m -15.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Smith 26.9m
17
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

A massive surge in shooting efficiency fueled a highly positive offensive showing, punishing defensive rotations from the perimeter. His floor-spacing completely shifted the geometry of the half-court offense, while steady positioning anchored a solid two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 26.9m -14.7
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaac Okoro 26.3m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Elite defensive pressure and relentless hustle plays defined this outing, generating extra possessions and disrupting opponent rhythm. He perfectly executed his role as a point-of-attack stopper, letting the game come to him offensively while locking down the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 26.3m -14.3
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 26.9m
12
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.8

Surgical precision as a playmaker and highly efficient shot selection kept his impact in the green. He played an incredibly controlled game, managing the tempo flawlessly while providing steady point-of-attack defense to stabilize the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 26.9m -14.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Giddey 26.0m
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.9

Masterful pacing and elite defensive anticipation drove a dominant two-way performance. By consistently breaking down the first line of defense and making sharp reads, he dictated the flow of the game and generated high-quality looks for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.4
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 26.0m -14.2
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 21.6m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

A sharp drop in offensive production and struggles to finish through contact resulted in a negative overall rating. He failed to establish any rhythm attacking the paint, rendering him largely ineffective during half-court sets and stalling the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 21.6m -11.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Complete invisibility on both ends of the floor led to a heavily negative impact score during his brief stint. A severe lack of aggression and failure to generate any meaningful hustle stats made him a liability, as opponents easily bypassed him in defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 15.8m -8.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Brief minutes limited his overall footprint, but active defensive rotations kept his head above water. He struggled to find his shooting stroke in the short stint, relying entirely on off-ball movement to stay relevant.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 7.6m -4.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0