GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 34.7m
12
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.7

Careless ball security in traffic led to a string of live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition game. Fox struggled to navigate drop coverage, often forcing risky pocket passes instead of taking the floater. The resulting fast-break points surrendered completely overshadowed his efficient perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 34.7m -13.9
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
16
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

An absolute terror in the paint defensively, single-handedly erasing multiple drives with his otherworldly wingspan. However, his offensive impact was heavily suppressed by settling for ten perimeter jumpers, most of which were heavily contested. The sheer volume of missed threes negated what could have been a historically dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +13.0
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 31.4m -12.4
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Clanking six attempts from beyond the arc severely limited his ability to stretch the floor and generate gravity. Champagnie found himself rushing his release against hard closeouts during a stagnant second-quarter stretch. A few timely weak-side rotations on defense prevented his overall score from dipping further into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 29.2m -11.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 28.9m
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.5

Smothering point-of-attack defense and relentless loose-ball pursuit defined his high hustle metrics. Unfortunately, his inability to finish through contact at the rim or knock down open looks crippled the half-court spacing. Opponents aggressively sagged off him in the pick-and-roll, stalling out several offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +5.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 28.9m -11.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 19.0m
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Extreme passivity on the offensive end resulted in a low-impact performance despite efficient touches. Barnes deferred too often to younger teammates, passing up semi-contested driving lanes. He maintained solid positional defense against isolation attempts, keeping him marginally in the positive.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 19.0m -7.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Repeatedly losing his man on baseline cuts exposed the defense and led to easy layups. Johnson was consistently a step slow navigating off-ball screens, forcing teammates into disadvantageous rotations. His bullish drives to the basket provided some offensive punch, but it wasn't enough to cover up the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 27.5m -11.0
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Settling for contested pull-up threes early in the shot clock dragged down his offensive efficiency. Vassell failed to put pressure on the rim, allowing the defense to stay glued to shooters on the perimeter. While he executed the defensive game plan well by fighting over screens, the empty offensive trips were too costly.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 25.3m -10.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kornet 19.9m
5
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.2

Flawless execution of verticality at the rim deterred multiple driving attempts and fueled a massive defensive rating. Kornet dominated the margins by keeping offensive rebounds alive with timely tip-outs during a crucial fourth-quarter stretch. His constant communication and rim deterrence anchored the second unit perfectly.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 19.9m -8.0
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 16.8m
5
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Indecision as a playmaker resulted in stalled possessions and late-clock bail-out shots. Harper struggled to read the weak-side tagger in the pick-and-roll, missing several open kick-out opportunities. He competed hard on the defensive glass, but the offensive stagnation ultimately pulled his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +52.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 16.8m -6.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

A quick trigger from beyond the arc provided an immediate spacing boost during his short stint. Bryant capitalized on defensive miscommunications in transition to find open spots on the perimeter. His brief burst of floor-stretching energy gave the offense a noticeable, albeit short-lived, jolt.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 7.4m -3.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 37.9m
17
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
-4.9

A staggering 15 missed field goals cratered his overall efficiency and fed directly into opponent transition opportunities. Murphy settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock rather than moving the ball. While his playmaking flashed in the half-court, the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed the positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 37.9m -15.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 33.5m
24
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.2

Bey's massive impact was driven by highly efficient shot selection and punishing the defense on closeouts. His defensive versatility allowed New Orleans to switch seamlessly across the perimeter during a crucial third-quarter run. He minimized mistakes entirely, avoiding the costly turnovers that typically drag down high-usage wings.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 33.5m -13.3
Impact +16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 33.2m
24
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.0

Relentless interior pressure forced the defense into constant rotation, generating high-quality looks at the rim. Williamson dominated his matchup in the paint by drawing multiple shooting fouls that compromised the opponent's frontcourt rotation. His physical downhill drives set the tone early and anchored the offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 33.2m -13.2
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 28.5m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Defensive disruption kept him afloat, as he consistently blew up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. However, his offensive impact dipped due to passing up open driving lanes and bricking a few crucial spot-up looks. The inability to punish closeouts ultimately resulted in a slightly negative overall showing.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 28.5m -11.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Derik Queen 17.2m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Forced attempts in traffic and poor finishing around the basket severely dragged down his offensive value. Queen struggled to establish deep post position against stronger defenders, leading to low-percentage, contested hooks. Despite some decent positional defense, the empty possessions on the other end were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 17.2m -6.8
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Yves Missi 30.3m
10
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.3

Elite rim protection and relentless activity on the glass generated a massive defensive rating boost. Missi completely neutralized interior penetration during the second half, altering numerous shots that didn't show up as blocks. Even with a handful of clunky misses around the rim, his sheer energy and hustle plays dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.1
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 30.3m -12.1
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Micah Peavy 18.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Complete offensive invisibility and bricked spot-up attempts allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team others. Peavy was a total non-threat on the perimeter, which clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators. He did manage to stay attached to his man off the ball defensively, but the offensive zeros were too damaging.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 18.3m -7.4
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc stalled out the second unit's offensive rhythm. Fears repeatedly forced early-clock jumpers instead of initiating the offense, leading to empty trips. A few active hands in the passing lanes provided a slight defensive bump, but not enough to salvage the overall negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 16.4m -6.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Pesky point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opposing ball handlers, but it was offset by a lack of offensive creation. Alvarado spent too much time floating on the perimeter rather than probing the defense. His signature backcourt pressure yielded a few rushed passes, keeping his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -49.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 13.2m -5.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Blown pick-and-roll coverages and late rotations at the rim heavily penalized his brief stint on the floor. Matković was repeatedly targeted in space by quicker guards, bleeding points in the paint. He simply couldn't anchor the drop coverage effectively enough to stay on the court.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -51.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.0
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 11.6m -4.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1