GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 35.0m
15
pts
17
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.4

Completely monopolized the painted area, altering countless shots and securing every available defensive rebound. His elite screen-setting freed up the guards, while his sheer vertical gravity on rolls to the rim collapsed the defense. This was a masterclass in dictating the geometry of the floor without needing post-up touches.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +11.4
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 35.0m -16.8
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
15
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.5

Snapped out of a recent shooting funk by punishing defenders who went under screens. His off-ball movement and quick trigger from deep warped the opponent's defensive rotations, opening up driving lanes for teammates. Active hands in the passing lanes further amplified his value as a two-way connector.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 31.4m -14.9
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S Jaden McDaniels 30.4m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.0

A perfectly neutral overall impact masked a game of extreme stylistic trade-offs. He provided excellent length on the perimeter and hit timely spot-up jumpers, but struggled to navigate heavy ball-screens defensively. The positive contributions in isolation defense were exactly offset by breakdowns in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 30.4m -14.5
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Julius Randle 22.8m
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Bully-ball tactics in the mid-post generated consistent offense, though his insistence on settling for above-the-break threes limited his overall efficiency. He made up for the poor perimeter shot selection with physical box-outs and active defensive communication. This physical interior presence kept his net impact slightly in the green despite the clunky outside shooting.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 22.8m -11.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Mike Conley 20.6m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

An inability to create separation against younger, quicker guards resulted in a string of heavily contested misses from deep. His offensive hesitation bogged down the half-court sets, allowing the defense to load up on the primary scorers. While he remained disciplined in his defensive shifts, the complete lack of scoring threat severely hindered the unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 20.6m -10.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Naz Reid 25.2m
15
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.6

Torched opposing backup bigs by dragging them out to the perimeter and attacking their closeouts. His defensive versatility stood out, as he successfully switched onto smaller wings without conceding driving angles. This dynamic inside-out scoring punch completely flipped the momentum of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +53.7
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.7
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 25.2m -12.0
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
Bones Hyland 24.7m
17
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.5

Injected pure chaos into the game with a dazzling display of off-the-dribble shot creation. Breaking out of a recent slump, he consistently beat his primary defender off the bounce, forcing secondary rotations that he expertly exploited. His aggressive downhill mentality forced the defense onto its heels and drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 24.7m -11.9
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 24.7m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Played the role of a defensive specialist to near perfection, denying entry passes and blowing up dribble hand-offs. His offensive limitations were apparent as defenders sagged off him, but he avoided forcing bad shots. The elite perimeter containment ensured he remained a slight net positive despite being an offensive non-factor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 24.7m -11.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Found success diving to the rim out of the dunker spot, though he rushed a few point-blank finishes in traffic. His sheer size altered a couple of interior looks, providing just enough resistance to survive his minutes. It was a chaotic but ultimately productive stint defined by raw physical exertion rather than polish.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 9.5m -4.5
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Looked completely out of sync during a brief rotational cameo, failing to execute offensive sets. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation on the other end, giving up straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. The inability to space the floor or contain the perimeter made this a highly damaging short shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.2%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Struggled to handle ball pressure, resulting in stalled offensive possessions and rushed, off-balance jumpers. While he competed hard fighting over screens defensively, his lack of offensive initiation killed the second unit's rhythm. The physical toll of the matchup clearly disrupted his usual playmaking cadence.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Joe Ingles 5.2m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Operated as a brilliant connective passer during a short stint, keeping the ball moving without needing to look at the rim. His veteran positioning on defense deterred drives and forced the opponent into late-clock situations. This masterclass in low-usage, high-IQ basketball perfectly stabilized the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Pat Spencer 33.5m
10
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.1

Playmaking vision and active hands in the passing lanes couldn't salvage a disastrous stint finishing around the rim. He repeatedly drove into congested paint areas, resulting in heavily contested misses that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The sheer volume of empty drives completely overshadowed his otherwise solid defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 33.5m -16.1
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
12
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.6

Exceptional hustle on loose balls and active rebounding masked a brutal offensive outing. He forced contested floaters and struggled to find his rhythm, snapping a strong five-game scoring stretch. The high volume of missed interior looks allowed the defense to leak out, dragging his net impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 27.8m -13.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Quinten Post 27.6m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Spacing the floor effectively as a trailing big man opened up crucial driving lanes for the guards. While he struggled slightly finishing inside, hitting timely pick-and-pop threes provided a massive boost to the offensive flow. This perimeter gravity, combined with disciplined drop coverage, drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 27.6m -13.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Moses Moody 26.3m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

A sharp regression from his recent scoring tear severely limited his overall effectiveness. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint led to empty possessions that bogged down the offense. Despite solid weak-side defensive rotations keeping his defensive metrics afloat, the sheer volume of clanked outside shots cratered his net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 26.3m -12.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Gui Santos 26.2m
11
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Relentless energy on the glass and disruptive closeouts generated excellent defensive and hustle metrics. However, poor shot selection from beyond the arc snapped a four-game streak of highly efficient shooting. His inability to convert open perimeter looks ultimately negated the value of his high-motor defensive shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 26.2m -12.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Buddy Hield 28.9m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

Continuing a brutal shooting slump, his inability to punish closeouts severely cramped the team's half-court spacing. He forced several early-clock jumpers that functioned as live-ball turnovers, instantly igniting the opponent's fast break. While he gave decent effort chasing shooters off the line, the offensive black hole he created was too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 28.9m -13.9
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Richard 28.2m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless screen navigation completely shut down his primary assignments. Even though his perimeter jumper was completely broken, his defensive switchability and transition hustle kept the team afloat. He proved that a player can still dictate the flow of a game while putting up a disastrous shooting line.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +5.5
Defense +14.3
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 28.2m -13.4
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Anchoring the paint with timely weak-side rotations provided a stable defensive floor during his minutes. He showed much better aggression rolling to the rim compared to recent outings, though he still left a few finishes short in traffic. Ultimately, his rim deterrence perfectly balanced out a relatively quiet offensive role.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 20.4m -9.8
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

A stark departure from his recent hyper-efficient finishing, he struggled to find cutting lanes against a packed interior. Getting caught out of position on back-door cuts uncharacteristically tanked his defensive metrics. The lack of his usual disruptive defensive energy made his brief stint highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -69.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 11.9m -5.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Maximized a brief rotation stint by crashing the offensive glass and keeping plays alive. His decisive cuts to the basket punished a sleeping defense and provided instant offensive efficiency. This burst of opportunistic scoring and disciplined positional defense resulted in a massive per-minute impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 9.4m -4.5
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0