GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 36.2m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.2

Tanked his overall impact through a disastrous shot selection profile, repeatedly firing blanks from beyond the arc. The sheer volume of empty possessions derailed the team's offensive rhythm entirely. Failed to compensate for the bricklaying with meaningful playmaking or defensive disruption.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 36.2m -24.2
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jusuf Nurkić 31.4m
17
pts
10
reb
12
ast
Impact
+2.5

Operated as a brilliant offensive hub at the elbows, picking apart the defense with precise interior passing. His massive frame deterred drives, though his limited mobility in space capped his overall defensive ceiling. Kept the half-court offense humming by punishing mismatches on the block.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -43.7
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 31.4m -21.1
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Cody Williams 29.9m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Faded completely into the background offensively, failing to apply any pressure on the rim. While his weak-side defensive rotations were sharp, his passivity with the ball allowed the defense to ignore him. The inability to punish closeouts severely cramped the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.4
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 29.9m -20.1
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 28.2m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

Squandered possessions by settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint. The resulting long rebounds frequently ignited opponent fast breaks, severely damaging his net impact. Despite flashes of defensive length, the offensive inefficiency was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 28.2m -18.9
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Svi Mykhailiuk 17.2m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Knocked down his open looks but struggled to navigate screens on the defensive end. Opponents successfully targeted him in isolation, bleeding away the value of his offensive efficiency. A quiet performance that failed to tilt the scales in either direction.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 17.2m -11.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.4

Carved up the defense with aggressive downhill drives, but likely gave value back through careless ball security. His point-of-attack defense lacked the necessary bite to contain dribble penetration. The impressive creation numbers masked underlying defensive and operational flaws.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 27.9m -18.7
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
23
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Showcased a potent scoring package from the perimeter, but his tunnel vision stunted ball movement. Defensive lapses off the ball allowed back-door cuts that negated his offensive contributions. A classic empty-calories performance where the scoring punch didn't translate to winning margins.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 23.4m -15.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Provided steady, reliable finishing around the basket to maintain his streak of highly efficient outings. His disciplined drop coverage deterred rim attempts without fouling. Made quick, decisive reads that kept the offensive machinery moving smoothly.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 15.7m -10.5
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Bogged down the offensive flow with extreme hesitancy, passing up viable looks to reset the offense. While his positional defense remained fundamentally sound, his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint. The resulting spacing issues severely hampered the second unit's effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 15.1m -10.1
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Applied solid ball pressure at the point of attack, generating a handful of disruptive defensive plays. Offensively, he struggled to separate from his primary defender, resulting in a muted impact. Played to a virtual standstill during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 15.1m -10.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 31.0m
26
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.8

Dominated the interior through relentless activity on the glass and high-level rim protection. Even with a high volume of missed jumpers, his sheer physical presence and defensive anchoring drove a massive positive impact. Dictated the terms of engagement in the paint from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense +6.4
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 31.0m -20.8
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Andrew Wiggins 26.6m
17
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.9

Capitalized on transition opportunities to generate highly efficient looks inside the arc. A strong commitment to closing out on shooters elevated his defensive metrics. His two-way engagement provided a stabilizing presence during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 26.6m -17.9
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 25.3m
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Sustained his impressive offensive rhythm by picking his spots carefully on the perimeter. His scoring efficiency masked a relatively quiet defensive showing, keeping his overall impact solidly positive. The ability to stretch the floor consistently opened up driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 25.3m -17.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Norman Powell 24.9m
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.3

Weighed down heavily by forced shots and an inability to connect from deep. His offensive struggles stalled out half-court possessions, bleeding value on the margins. Failed to generate enough defensive disruption to offset the cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 24.9m -16.8
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Broke out of a recent slump by capitalizing on high-quality catch-and-shoot opportunities. His decisive decision-making on the perimeter punished defensive rotations effectively. Played strictly within his role, maximizing his minutes without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 16.9m -11.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.6

Bogged down the offense with a string of heavily contested mid-range attempts that failed to drop. While his defensive rotations and hustle metrics remained strong, the empty offensive possessions cratered his overall value. Struggled to find a rhythm against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 27.6m -18.6
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Dru Smith 25.6m
6
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.9

Overcame an abysmal shooting performance by transforming into an absolute terror on the defensive end. Generated massive value through relentless ball pressure and elite rebounding for his position. His sheer motor and willingness to do the dirty work completely altered the game's complexion.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +7.8
Defense +12.5
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 25.6m -17.2
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 0
23
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Leveraged his size to shoot comfortably over closeouts, providing a crucial perimeter spark. Active hands in passing lanes boosted his defensive impact significantly. Bounced back from a quiet stretch by aggressively hunting his shot in early offense.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 25.0m -16.8
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Found immense success operating as a trailer in transition, punishing the defense with timely deep strikes. His length on the wing disrupted multiple opponent actions, adding significant defensive value. Broke out of a severe shooting slump by trusting his mechanics on open looks.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +36.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 23.8m -16.0
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a brief stint, forcing a couple of ill-advised attempts in traffic. His defensive positioning was adequate, but he failed to leave a distinct mark on the contest. The lack of offensive rhythm ultimately pushed his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +37.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 10.1m -6.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Maximized a microscopic rotation window by immediately drilling a spot-up look. Provided energetic closeouts during his brief time on the floor. A textbook example of staying ready and executing perfectly in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 3.1m -2.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1