GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 35.3m
23
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.6

Sizzling accuracy from beyond the arc punished defenders for going under screens, opening up the rest of his floor game. He paired that perimeter gravity with surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense, cementing a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 35.3m -19.9
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jusuf Nurkić 34.8m
17
pts
11
reb
14
ast
Impact
+4.5

Operating as the central offensive hub, his elite playmaking from the high post generated wide-open looks for cutters all night. The poor finishing efficiency around the rim was heavily offset by his massive defensive rebounding and rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.0
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 34.8m -19.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 32.3m
25
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Lethal shot-making from the mid-range and transition run-outs drove a massive offensive spike. The scoring efficiency was so overwhelming that it easily masked a few missed rotations on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.8
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 32.3m -18.2
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 22.7m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Despite taking a backseat in scoring volume, highly selective shot choices and timely cuts kept the offense humming. His length on the perimeter disrupted opposing ball-handlers, proving he can impact winning even when his own usage drops.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 22.7m -12.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 18.9m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Excellent shot selection maximized his limited touches, acting as a reliable release valve when the primary actions broke down. He didn't force the issue after a recent scoring surge, playing strictly within the flow of the offense to secure a slightly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 18.9m -10.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

Passive offensive play and an inability to connect from deep allowed the defense to trap the primary ball-handlers without consequence. His failure to generate secondary offense or secure loose balls left a glaring void in the rotation's overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -49.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 24.0m -13.6
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.1

Poor decision-making in traffic and forced drives into the teeth of the defense severely damaged his team's offensive rhythm. The inability to break down his primary defender consistently led to empty possessions that the opposition quickly turned into transition points.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -6.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total -3.8
Avg player in 20.1m -11.3
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

An absolute deep-freeze from the floor derailed the offense, as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint. Even a commendable effort on the defensive end couldn't salvage a night where his missed jumpers actively killed scoring runs.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 20.0m -11.2
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

A drastic reduction in offensive involvement stalled his recent momentum, as he struggled to establish deep post position against physical coverage. While he battled on the glass and held his own defensively, the lack of his usual scoring punch left the second unit starving for points.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 18.7m -10.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kevin Love 13.2m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Veteran spacing and quick-decision passing kept the ball moving during his short stint. However, a lack of foot speed in transition defense allowed the opponent to capitalize on cross-matches, pulling his overall impact slightly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 13.2m -7.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 37.8m
16
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.4

Heavy playmaking responsibilities and strong defensive engagement couldn't quite overcome a rough shooting night that sank his usual efficiency. Missed finishes at the rim dragged his net score into the red despite his clear utility as an offensive initiator.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 37.8m -21.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 35.1m
31
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.0

Blistering scoring efficiency from all three levels shattered his recent averages and broke the opponent's point-of-attack defense. The sheer volume of high-quality shot creation heavily outweighed a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 99.1%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +28.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 35.1m -19.8
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite perimeter spacing fueled a strong offensive rating, as his heavy volume from beyond the arc punished defensive rotations. Strong defensive metrics suggest he held up well on the wing, ensuring his shooting surge translated to a positive overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 33.8m -18.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
26
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.5

Total interior dominance and elite rim protection anchored a massive positive impact. His ability to hit trail threes at a high clip forced opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for the entire offense.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +13.2
Raw total +36.9
Avg player in 32.6m -18.4
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 40.7%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 3
S Harrison Barnes 21.9m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.5

A severe lack of offensive rhythm cratered his overall value, as empty possessions from the perimeter stalled the team's half-court flow. Despite passable positional defense, his inability to stretch the floor or generate secondary action resulted in a heavily negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 21.9m -12.2
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.1

Relentless downhill driving generated a significant scoring bump compared to his recent baseline. While his outside shot wasn't falling, the constant rim pressure bent the defense and created secondary passing windows to keep his overall impact solidly positive.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 31.5m -17.6
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Opportunistic scoring around the basket provided a massive, unexpected jolt to the second unit. Capitalizing on broken plays and defensive lapses allowed him to generate high-value looks in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 13.4m -7.5
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 13.4m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A sharp drop in offensive usage limited his usual scoring punch, snapping a strong streak of efficient outings. However, highly disruptive perimeter defense kept him narrowly in the positive during his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 13.4m -7.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

A complete lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes during his shifts. He managed to claw back some value through scrappy point-of-attack defense, but the offensive zeros ultimately dictated a negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 8.8m -4.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Brief rotational minutes were marred by clunky offensive execution and missed pick-and-pop opportunities. Solid positional defense wasn't enough to salvage a stint where the offense visibly stagnated with him acting as the hub.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -49.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 8.1m -4.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Though his offensive production was entirely absent in a micro-shift, high-energy closeouts and switchability kept his impact in the green. His brief appearance was defined purely by defensive disruption rather than the efficient scoring he had shown recently.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 3.6m -1.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0