GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 39.2m
23
pts
18
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.1

A dominant statistical output was entirely offset by defensive lapses in transition and untimely live-ball turnovers. His sheer production masked how often he lost his man on back-door cuts, resulting in a perfectly neutral net rating despite the heavy lifting on offense.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 39.2m -21.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Dyson Daniels 37.3m
8
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Passive offensive tendencies allowed the defense to cheat off him and blow up actions intended for teammates. While he finished efficiently when he actually took shots, his reluctance to attack closeouts bogged down the half-court spacing and dragged his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 37.3m -20.3
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.4m
25
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.3

Stretching the floor with surprising perimeter accuracy completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. This unexpected spacing, combined with his usual robust interior deterrence, generated a massive positive swing whenever he anchored the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.6
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 36.4m -19.8
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Errant shot selection and forced isolation attempts severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. He worked tirelessly to recover loose balls and fight through screens, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his gritty defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +7.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 33.4m -18.1
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Corey Kispert 15.4m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Defensive miscommunications and struggles navigating off-ball screens allowed opponents to capitalize during his shifts. Even though he knocked down a pair of timely perimeter shots, his inability to string together stops kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 15.4m -8.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CJ McCollum 29.4m
21
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Methodical dissection of drop coverage yielded high-quality looks and stabilized the offense during rocky stretches. His veteran savvy in the mid-range kept the scoreboard ticking, though a lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack prevented a higher overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 29.4m -15.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luke Kennard 23.2m
9
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.0

Elite floor spacing opened up driving lanes, but he was frequently targeted on the other end of the floor via pick-and-roll switches. The points he generated through his gravity and perimeter accuracy were given right back due to defensive mismatches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 23.2m -12.5
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Struggled to establish deep post position, often clogging driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. He provided a brief spark of rim protection, but his lack of offensive gravity made it difficult for the second unit to generate clean looks.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 11.6m -6.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Looked lost within the offensive sets, resulting in stalled ball movement and a pair of blown assignments in transition. His brief stint on the floor was marred by poor spacing and an inability to impact the glass.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -42.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 8.8m -4.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A quick rotational cameo featured mostly cardio, as he failed to register a single shot attempt. He executed the defensive scheme adequately but offered zero threat to bend the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 5.4m -2.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless off-ball movement and high-energy closeouts defined a breakout performance that vastly exceeded his recent baseline. His exceptional hustle metrics reflect a willingness to dive for 50/50 balls and disrupt passing lanes, fueling transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 35.2m -19.0
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 33.9m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Rampant inefficiency completely derailed his overall impact, as forced mid-range pull-ups and contested drives resulted in empty possessions. While his point-of-attack defense remained stout, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips dragged down the lineup.

Shooting
FG 4/18 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 33.9m -18.4
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Booker 28.4m
31
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.5

Masterful shot creation against varied coverages yielded a massive offensive rating spike when he was on the floor. He consistently punished switches with lethal perimeter shot-making, overcoming average defensive metrics through sheer scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 28.4m -15.5
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 27.6m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.5

A stark lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. He provided solid weak-side help and rotational defense, but his hesitancy to attack closeouts punished the team's spacing and cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 27.6m -14.9
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Mark Williams 20.9m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite rim protection and vertical deterrence anchored the defense during his shifts. Even with a dip in his usual finishing rate around the basket, his ability to alter shots and secure contested loose balls drove a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 20.9m -11.4
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Surprisingly stout perimeter containment fueled a massive defensive rating, keeping his overall impact firmly in the green. Despite struggling from beyond the arc, he found success attacking hard closeouts and finishing efficiently in the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +10.3
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 30.3m -16.3
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 27.1m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.0

Flawless execution as a roll man and connector kept the offense humming during his minutes. His superb positioning on both ends yielded high-value defensive stops and timely screens, proving that low-usage efficiency can drive winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 27.1m -14.7
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

Stagnant offensive possessions and an inability to break down his primary defender dragged his overall rating into the negative. While he provided adequate ball pressure at the point of attack, the lack of a scoring threat allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 17.7m -9.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 14.8m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Missed rotations on the weak side and a couple of ill-advised perimeter attempts neutralized his otherwise steady rebounding. He struggled to find the flow of the game, resulting in empty possessions that slightly hindered the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -46.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 14.8m -8.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

A severely truncated rotation stint limited any meaningful rhythm or flow. He managed to avoid defensive lapses during his brief run, but the sample size was too small to generate significant value either way.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +38.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 4.2m -2.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1