GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 34.6m
22
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+8.7

Masterful two-way execution defined this performance, driven by elite shot selection and hyper-active hands. He surged well past his usual scoring average while maintaining high-end hustle metrics (+4.8) to dominate his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 34.6m -22.1
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 34.5m
15
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.0

Elite defensive metrics (+11.6) were completely overshadowed by a disastrous offensive performance that stalled out multiple possessions. Forcing bad looks and finishing poorly around the rim dragged his impact deep into the red despite his high-end hustle.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +11.6
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 34.5m -22.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 4
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.1

Sizzling perimeter execution was offset by struggles inside the arc, keeping his overall impact slightly negative. Despite solid defensive metrics (+6.5), his overall shot profile lacked the balance needed to drive a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 34.1m -21.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Onyeka Okongwu 31.3m
12
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Struggling to convert high-percentage looks inside heavily depressed his overall value. While he generated extra possessions on the glass, his inability to finish through contact negated that advantage.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 31.3m -19.8
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Corey Kispert 16.7m
7
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

Clanking open looks from the perimeter completely neutralized his offensive value. Combined with a negative defensive rating, his inability to stretch the floor resulted in a heavily damaging impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -56.4
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 16.7m -10.6
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CJ McCollum 27.8m
23
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.1

Lethal perimeter shot-making completely opened up the half-court offense and fueled a massive +11.1 impact score. He hunted high-quality looks from deep with ruthless efficiency, punishing every defensive rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 27.8m -17.8
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Luke Kennard 23.3m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Flawless shooting combined with surprisingly robust hustle metrics (+5.2) drove a highly efficient shift. He punished closeouts perfectly and did the dirty work required to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.2%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 23.3m -14.9
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.5

Perfect execution around the basket resulted in a massive spike in value, outperforming his usual scoring average by a wide margin. He dominated his minutes with hard rolls to the rim and stout interior defense (+6.3).

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 16.7m -10.6
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Capitalized on his minutes with strong finishing and active defense (+4.4). He provided a massive spark compared to his usual output, bringing much-needed energy to the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +62.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 13.5m -8.5
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A short, ineffective stint highlighted by missed jumpers and a failure to generate any positive momentum. He couldn't find the rhythm required to positively influence the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 6.1m -3.9
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A brief cameo yielded no tangible production or impact. He simply filled space for a minute without altering the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.3m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 35.2m
26
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

High-volume bricklaying threatened to derail the offense, but his sheer defensive gravity (+11.0) kept his overall impact highly positive. He forced the issue too often in isolation sets, yet his two-way versatility masked the poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +11.0
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 35.2m -22.4
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 30.3m
6
pts
5
reb
13
ast
Impact
-11.5

Elite distribution numbers were completely undone by a catastrophic -11.5 net impact, driven by forced shots and likely live-ball turnovers. His scoring aggression plummeted compared to his recent stretch, making him a predictable liability when calling his own number.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.7%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 30.3m -19.3
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jarace Walker 29.6m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.9

An absolute terror on the less glamorous end of the floor, generating a massive +15.9 defensive impact to anchor the lineup. He extended his streak of highly efficient shooting nights by picking his spots perfectly within the flow of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +6.2
Defense +15.9
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 29.6m -18.9
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 29.2m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.4

Empty calories defined this shift, as his decent shooting splits completely failed to translate into winning basketball. A glaring lack of hustle plays (+0.4) and poor defensive resistance allowed opponents to score at will when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 29.2m -18.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Johnny Furphy 18.4m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Defensive rotations (+5.5) and active hustle (+2.9) kept his head above water despite a frigid night from the perimeter. His willingness to do the dirty work on the margins salvaged what could have been a negative shift.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 18.4m -11.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Efficient scoring numbers masked a negative overall footprint, pointing to defensive lapses and a lack of off-ball engagement. He struggled to impact the game when the ball wasn't in his hands, allowing opponents to exploit his defensive matchups.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -42.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.8m -15.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 19.8m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.4

Settling for bad looks from the perimeter ruined his offensive rhythm and tanked his impact score. This was a sharp regression from his recent highly efficient play, as he failed to establish any interior presence or punish switches.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 19.8m -12.6
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
16
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Relentless energy (+4.3 hustle) and a massive scoring surge drove a highly productive stint. He consistently broke down the defense with decisive drives, continuing his streak of hyper-efficient performances by attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -47.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 18.3m -11.6
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ben Sheppard 14.3m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Completely invisible during his minutes, offering zero defensive resistance or hustle to compensate for a cold shooting night. His inability to impact the game in any peripheral category resulted in a brutal -10.3 net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 14.3m -9.1
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Maximized his brief time on the floor by maintaining his flawless interior finishing streak. He provided just enough rim pressure and defensive stability (+2.1) to anchor the second unit effectively.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 12.3m -7.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jay Huff 3.5m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Perfect execution in a tiny three-minute window provided a quick jolt of positive impact. He capitalized immediately on a perimeter look to maximize his per-minute value before heading back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 3.5m -2.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 1.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A brief cardio session at the end of the rotation yielded zero statistical footprint. He simply wasn't on the floor long enough to influence the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Logged purely garbage-time minutes without registering a single measurable action. His impact score reflects a completely neutral, eventless stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Managed to squeeze out a slightly positive rating in under two minutes of action. A quick conversion kept his efficiency streak alive despite the lack of playing time.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 100.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.4m -0.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0