GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 36.4m
26
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Physical perimeter defense (+4.2) and aggressive downhill drives set a punishing tone for the starting unit. He embraced the role of an offensive battering ram, absorbing contact to finish through traffic while maintaining his defensive intensity. This two-way aggression resulted in a highly impactful, tone-setting performance.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.4%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 36.4m -18.3
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Grayson Allen 34.7m
18
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Shot the team out of multiple possessions with an abysmal perimeter display, short-circuiting the offensive flow. He attempted to compensate for the cold streak with relentless hustle (+4.5), chasing down long rebounds to salvage broken plays. Ultimately, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips outweighed his gritty effort.

Shooting
FG 4/18 (22.2%)
3PT 1/11 (9.1%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 34.7m -17.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 31.4m
8
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.3

A frigid perimeter stroke entirely neutralized his sturdy defensive contributions (+4.5). Opponents aggressively stunted off him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot and completely bogging down the half-court spacing. The sheer volume of missed open looks resulted in a severely negative overall impact (-9.3).

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 31.4m -15.8
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

A staggering lack of playmaking vision from the guard spot crippled the offensive rhythm, leading to a massive negative impact (-11.8). He repeatedly missed open reads, settling for contested floaters instead of initiating the offense. His inability to organize the floor allowed the opposing defense to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.7
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 30.7m -15.4
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 24.1m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Dominated the interior through sheer effort, utilizing his massive catch radius to clean up misses and secure extra possessions (+5.2 hustle). He provided an excellent vertical spacing threat that forced the defense to collapse on his rim runs. This low-maintenance, high-efficiency output perfectly anchored the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 24.1m -12.1
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Offensive ineptitude severely capped his value, as he routinely derailed possessions with forced drives into traffic. He fought admirably in the trenches (+4.8 hustle) to generate loose balls, but the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him. The inability to finish at the rim ultimately doomed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 21.9m -10.9
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 16.7m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Provided excellent rim protection and switchability during his minutes, stabilizing the interior defense (+3.0). He operated efficiently as a roll man, setting bruising screens and finishing with soft touch in the paint. This disciplined, mistake-free basketball was exactly what the rotation required.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -62.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 16.7m -8.3
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.9

Delivered a masterclass in two-way efficiency, anchored by suffocating perimeter defense (+8.0) that completely locked down his matchup. He capitalized on every offensive opportunity with flawless shot selection, punishing late closeouts without forcing the issue. This flawless stretch swung the momentum entirely.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 15.0m -7.6
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Struggled mightily to stay in front of his man, bleeding points at the point of attack (-1.2 defense). His erratic offensive decision-making compounded the issue, as he forced off-balance shots early in the clock. This chaotic stint disrupted the second unit's synergy and quickly dug a hole.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -48.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.2
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 13.0m -6.6
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Dunn 8.0m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Injected immediate physicality into the frontcourt, crashing the glass with reckless abandon during his brief stint. Though his touch around the basket was erratic, his sheer size and activity level disrupted the opponent's rebounding schemes. A quick burst of energy yielded a surprisingly positive net result.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 8.0m -4.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely saw the floor, logging a brief stint of mop-up duty. He managed to secure a couple of loose rebounds but otherwise failed to leave a distinct imprint on the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +110.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.7m -1.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Made a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation, drawing a quick foul to get on the board. His massive frame briefly deterred drives, resulting in a marginal positive impact during garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +110.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 2.7m -1.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Rushed a pair of perimeter looks during a very brief cameo, failing to find an offensive rhythm. However, he stayed engaged defensively (+2.3), executing proper rotations to keep his net impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +110.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 2.7m -1.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Pelle Larsson 35.1m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.9

A catastrophic negative impact score (-12.9) suggests severe issues with ball security and defensive rotations that the raw counting stats masked. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, bogging down Miami's half-court execution. He bled value through poorly timed fouls and live-ball turnovers.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 35.1m -17.6
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 32.4m
22
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Defensive dominance (+5.3) anchored his highly positive overall rating, completely offsetting a clunky shooting night from the floor. He stretched his range to the perimeter to pull opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up cutting lanes for teammates. His rim deterrence remains an elite foundational asset.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.3
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 32.4m -16.2
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Norman Powell 31.3m
16
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Disastrous shot selection cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. While his defensive engagement (+5.8) was surprisingly robust, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged the team down. He essentially shot his team out of rhythm during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/21 (23.8%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.1%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 31.3m -15.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Wiggins 23.5m
10
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Overcame a completely broken perimeter stroke by crashing the glass and generating second-chance opportunities. His high hustle metrics (+3.0) indicate a willingness to do the dirty work when his jumper abandoned him. This blue-collar approach salvaged a positive overall impact during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 23.5m -11.8
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.6

Elite defensive instincts (+7.9) defined this highly efficient stint, as he consistently blew up opponent pick-and-rolls. He played strictly within his role offensively, moving the ball quickly and avoiding costly mistakes. This low-usage, high-leverage defensive performance perfectly stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.9
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 22.8m -11.4
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
20
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.9

Surgical precision in the mid-post and relentless off-ball movement fueled a highly productive outing. His excellent hustle metrics (+3.5) reflect a knack for winning 50/50 balls and keeping offensive possessions alive. He consistently punished defensive miscommunications with timely cuts to the basket.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 36.0m -18.0
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Dru Smith 22.6m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+6.9) tell the story of a gritty, high-motor performance that energized the entire rotation. He generated extra possessions by diving for loose balls and applying relentless point-of-attack pressure. This relentless energy masked a lack of traditional playmaking.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +6.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 22.6m -11.4
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Provided a reliable two-way spark, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate a strong defensive rating (+3.5). His willingness to take decisive perimeter shots kept the defense honest, even if the efficiency was middling. He capitalized on favorable cross-matches in transition to maximize his brief floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +41.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 17.6m -8.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.3

Complete offensive passivity rendered him a massive liability (-8.3), as defenders freely sagged off him to clog the paint. He failed to leverage his shooting gravity, turning down open looks and stalling the offensive flow. A lack of aggression essentially forced his team to play four-on-five on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 15.2m -7.7
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Made the most of a brief cameo by aggressively attacking closeouts to earn trips to the foul line. Though his defensive rotations were a step slow (-1.2), he brought immediate energy to a stagnant lineup. A quick burst of activity yielded a net-positive result in garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.2
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 3.5m -1.8
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0