GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 37.0m
21
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Poor spacing decisions and an over-reliance on isolation drives into traffic resulted in costly empty possessions. His failure to navigate through off-ball screens allowed his matchup to generate uncontested looks. The resulting defensive breakdowns offset his otherwise solid finishing at the rim.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 37.0m -21.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Max Christie 34.6m
24
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Aggressive perimeter shot-hunting stretched the defense thin, opening up the interior for his teammates. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications during transition sequences to find clean looks from deep. Active hands on the perimeter disrupted passing lanes, adding defensive value to his scoring outburst.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 34.6m -19.6
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cooper Flagg 34.3m
16
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.3

A heavy diet of contested midrange pull-ups dragged down his offensive efficiency and stalled the team's half-court flow. Despite the poor shot selection, his elite weak-side shot-blocking kept his overall impact hovering near neutral. He struggled to finish through contact when attacking the teeth of the defense.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 34.3m -19.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dwight Powell 23.8m
0
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Value was derived entirely from bruising screens and high-motor defensive rotations rather than scoring. He anchored a pivotal second-quarter defensive stand by repeatedly blowing up dribble hand-offs. Sacrificing his body to draw two crucial offensive fouls cemented his positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 23.8m -13.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Caleb Martin 23.6m
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.4

Elite off-ball movement and perfectly timed baseline cuts punished the defense's ball-watching tendencies. He generated massive value through relentless hustle plays, including securing multiple loose balls that led to transition scores. His disciplined closeouts on the perimeter completely neutralized his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.2
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 23.6m -13.4
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Hesitancy to pull the trigger on open looks bogged down the offensive flow and allowed the defense to reset. He consistently lost the rebounding battle against smaller matchups, giving up back-breaking second-chance points. This lack of assertiveness on both ends resulted in a steeply negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 25.5m -14.4
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

Tunnel vision as a ball-handler led to forced shots early in the clock, disrupting the team's offensive rhythm. He was frequently caught ball-watching on defense, surrendering easy back-door cuts during a critical fourth-quarter stretch. The lack of secondary playmaking severely capped his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 23.2m -13.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Total dominance as a rim deterrent completely altered the opponent's shot profile in the paint. He anchored the drop coverage flawlessly, forcing slashers to kick the ball out rather than challenge him inside. This elite defensive anchoring more than compensated for his lack of offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +9.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 16.3m -9.2
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

An inability to separate from physical defenders severely limited his catch-and-shoot opportunities. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, forcing the defense into scrambling rotations that yielded open corner threes. The lack of offensive gravity allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 14.4m -8.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to organize the second unit's offense, resulting in stagnant, late-clock isolation plays. His inability to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack compromised the defensive shell. He was quickly pulled after the tempo slipped out of control.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 4.2m -2.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

A brief, disjointed stint was marred by missed defensive assignments in transition. He failed to establish any physical presence on the glass during his short time on the floor. The resulting quick scoring run by the opponent forced an immediate substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 39.1m
33
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
+12.9

Masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages drove an elite offensive rating. He systematically dismantled the opponent's blitz packages by delivering pinpoint skip passes to the weak side. Exceptional positional rebounding and active hands in the passing lanes further amplified his dominant two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 14/15 (93.3%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +35.0
Avg player in 39.1m -22.1
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 29.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S LeBron James 36.6m
17
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite solid offensive efficiency, his overall impact slipped into the red due to sluggish transition defense that bled points off misses. A pattern of settling for early-clock jumpers in the third quarter stalled the offense's momentum. He still generated consistent rim pressure when isolated on the wing, which kept his box metrics afloat.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 36.6m -20.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 32.0m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Over-aggression on the perimeter led to crucial blow-bys that compromised the defensive shell. While he found his shooting rhythm after a recent slump, his tendency to gamble for steals in the passing lanes proved costly. The resulting breakdown in rotation integrity dragged his net impact firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 32.0m -18.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jake LaRavia 30.5m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

The scoring surge was entirely negated by defensive lapses and poor spacing decisions that clogged the half-court offense. He consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts during a brutal second-quarter stretch. His inability to execute clean closeouts allowed shooters to attack his momentum, cratering his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 30.5m -17.2
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Deandre Ayton 23.8m
9
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A heavy volume of forced, contested hooks and floaters cratered his offensive efficiency and snapped his hot shooting streak. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups, settling for low-percentage looks early in the clock. However, active offensive rebounding partially salvaged his overall defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.7%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -26.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 23.8m -13.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Spacing the floor effectively from the corners opened up driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. His decisive catch-and-shoot execution against late closeouts punished the defense's rotation errors. He also provided timely weak-side rim deterrence to keep his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 27.1m -15.4
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 15.4m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Offensive invisibility and a failure to bend the defense off the dribble severely limited his utility. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation during a rough third-quarter stretch, neutralizing his otherwise decent point-of-attack pressure. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively help off him.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 15.4m -8.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 14.6m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Flawless shot selection and disciplined screening anchored a highly efficient, albeit low-volume, stint. He excelled as a vertical spacer, forcing the defense to collapse on his rim runs during pick-and-roll sequences. Staying within his role and avoiding unnecessary fouls maximized his value during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 14.6m -8.2
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Relentless energy on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that swung momentum. Hitting timely perimeter shots when left unguarded forced the defense to respect his spacing. His versatility in seamlessly switching across three positions glued the defensive unit together.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 12.5m -7.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 8.4m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Exceptional positional awareness in drop coverage anchored the interior defense despite his lack of offensive production. He consistently deterred drives by maintaining verticality at the rim, frustrating slashers. This disciplined rim protection drove a surprisingly high net rating in a short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 8.4m -4.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0