GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Luguentz Dort 35.6m
19
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

A massive surge in perimeter efficiency shattered his recent offensive slump and drove a highly positive rating. He punished defensive closeouts while maintaining his trademark physicality at the point of attack (+5.8 defense). This two-way dominance completely shifted the momentum during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 35.6m -16.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
24
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.9

Surgical precision in the midrange and elite rim-pressure fueled a dominant overall rating (+12.9). He completely dictated the pace of the game, taking only high-value shots while generating massive transition advantages through active hands (+5.6 hustle). The defense simply had no answer for his methodical, mistake-free orchestration.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +5.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 35.2m -16.7
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 29.4m
11
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite rim deterrence (+6.7 defense) anchored his positive impact despite a completely dormant perimeter stroke. He altered countless shots in the paint and dominated 50/50 balls (+3.9 hustle) to generate extra possessions. His ability to control the restricted area defensively masked his inability to stretch the floor in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 29.4m -13.8
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylin Williams 21.0m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Clunky finishing in the paint dragged his overall metrics into the red. He struggled to establish a rhythm against interior length, missing several bunnies that he normally converts. While he provided decent positional defense, the wasted offensive possessions ultimately cost the team.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 21.0m -10.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 15.7m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

A stark lack of offensive aggression completely tanked his value during his stint on the floor (-6.7 overall). He was overly passive against ball pressure, failing to initiate sets or look for his own shot. This dramatic drop-off from his recent steady production left the second unit devoid of playmaking.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 15.7m -7.3
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

An uncharacteristic barrage of forced, contested threes completely shattered his recent streak of hyper-efficient play. The sheer volume of long misses handed the opposition easy transition run-outs, tanking his overall impact (-6.5). Even a solid effort navigating screens defensively (+4.1) couldn't repair the damage done by his erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 29.5m -13.8
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite an unexpected surge in scoring volume, a dismal display of perimeter chucking kept his overall impact negative. He repeatedly short-circuited offensive sets by launching low-percentage deep balls early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds consistently put his team's transition defense in compromising positions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 28.4m -13.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 22.1m
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Relentless off-ball movement and high-motor hustle plays (+4.0) kept his rating positive despite a cold shooting night. Even while clanking open perimeter looks, his pure gravity warped the defense and opened up cutting lanes for teammates. He salvaged his minutes by diving for loose balls and executing flawless rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.1m -10.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Extreme passivity on the offensive end caused his impact metrics to slide into the negative. After a string of aggressive scoring nights, he vanished into the background, refusing to challenge closeouts or attack the rim. His reluctance to engage offensively bogged down the spacing for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 20.2m -9.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

A brief, ineffective cameo at the end of the rotation yielded a quick negative rating. He looked out of sync during his limited run, rushing his lone offensive touch and failing to make a dent defensively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -95.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 3.0m -1.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 36.0m
13
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

Poor shot selection and a heavy volume of missed jumpers completely cratered his overall impact (-6.5). Despite putting up solid defensive metrics, the sheer number of empty offensive possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities. He failed to find any rhythm, continuing a trend of mediocre perimeter execution that bogged down the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 36.0m -17.0
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
23
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.9

Blistering perimeter shot-making fueled a massive spike in overall impact (+11.9). He punished drop coverage repeatedly from beyond the arc, forcing the defense into impossible rotations. Paired with highly disruptive on-ball defense (+7.7), this was a masterclass in controlling the tempo and breaking open the game.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.7
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 31.9m -15.0
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 31.8m
10
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.4

Elite defensive anchoring (+6.6) drove a positive overall rating despite a quiet scoring night. He passed up several open perimeter looks, choosing instead to facilitate and disrupt passing lanes on the other end. His ability to dictate the game's flow without high shooting volume highlights his immense two-way versatility.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.6
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 31.8m -14.9
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

A sharp regression in finishing efficiency dragged down his overall rating after a recent hot streak. He partially salvaged his night through relentless activity on the glass and loose ball recoveries (+4.2 hustle). However, forced attempts in the paint ultimately yielded too many empty trips to keep his impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 31.6m -14.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 21.4m
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.1

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+6.7) defined a highly efficient two-way performance. He capitalized on high-quality shot selection to generate steady offense while completely neutralizing his primary matchup on the perimeter. The combination of disciplined closeouts and timely cuts maximized his value in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 21.4m -10.1
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Errant perimeter shooting threatened to derail his night, but elite defensive execution (+6.2) kept him slightly above water. He compensated for the bricked spot-up looks by generating crucial deflections and fighting through screens. His willingness to do the dirty work (+3.6 hustle) salvaged an otherwise ugly offensive outing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 27.5m -12.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 24.5m
9
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

Ineffective half-court orchestration and a lack of perimeter gravity kept his overall rating firmly in the red. Opposing defenses comfortably sagged off him, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates and stalling out sets. While he offered mild defensive resistance, the offensive stagnation he caused was too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 24.5m -11.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 20.8m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite breaking out of a severe shooting slump with excellent shot selection, his overall impact remained negative due to defensive liabilities. He was consistently targeted in isolation, bleeding points on the other end of the floor. The improved spacing he provided simply couldn't offset his struggles to contain dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 20.8m -9.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 14.6m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Flawless execution on limited touches provided a much-needed spark off the bench. He snapped a brutal recent cold streak by strictly taking high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense. His disciplined spacing and mistake-free minutes yielded a modest but crucial positive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 14.6m -6.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1