GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 38.7m
24
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.4

A brutal night from beyond the arc dragged down his overall efficiency and neutralized his high-end playmaking. While he successfully orchestrated the offense to generate positive box metrics, the wasted perimeter possessions proved too costly. His inability to find his outside stroke ultimately tipped his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 10/15 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 38.7m -19.7
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Peyton Watson 37.0m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.1

Shot selection completely torpedoed his value, as he forced up a massive volume of low-percentage looks that killed offensive possessions. While he provided decent resistance on defense and fought for loose balls, it couldn't salvage the damage done by his heavily contested attempts. The sheer inefficiency of his offensive diet was the defining factor in his team-worst rating.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 37.0m -18.8
Impact -16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Spencer Jones 32.7m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Exploded past his usual production with lethal, low-volume perimeter sniping that maximized every touch. He compounded this massive offensive efficiency spike with elite hustle and crisp defensive rotations. This flawless two-way execution made him the ultimate high-leverage role player tonight.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 32.7m -16.7
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Dominated the interior with a highly efficient scoring surge that nearly doubled his recent output. His massive rebounding presence anchored the defense and consistently ended opponent possessions. Bullying smaller matchups in the paint drove a rock-solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 30.9m -15.7
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Pickett 16.4m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Despite converting his few attempts to boost his scoring average, a lack of overall involvement limited his positive contributions. Minimal hustle plays and a failure to generate broader offensive flow resulted in a net negative shift. He simply didn't assert enough pressure on the game to offset the bench unit's struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 16.4m -8.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

A heavy reliance on the three-point shot yielded mixed results, as his overall field goal inefficiency outweighed the perimeter makes. He offered very little in terms of hustle or defensive resistance to balance out the missed jumpers. The volatile nature of his shot profile prevented him from establishing a positive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 31.8m -16.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 23.2m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Continued his streak of surgical offensive efficiency, exploiting gaps in the defense to significantly outpace his recent scoring norms. He paired this clinical finishing with disruptive defensive activity that fueled transition opportunities. His ability to seamlessly blend high-percentage scoring with perimeter lockdown duties drove a superb net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.7
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 23.2m -11.8
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 17.1m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Provided adequate energy and defensive positioning but failed to make a meaningful dent offensively. His low usage rate meant his efficient finishing couldn't scale up to cover the rotational gaps while he was on the floor. It was a quiet, low-leverage stint that drifted into negative territory due to a lack of overall volume.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 17.1m -8.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Barely factored into the game's outcome during his brief stint, logging minimal touches and negligible defensive impact. While he didn't actively hurt the team with poor shooting, his lack of aggression kept him from generating positive momentum. A completely passive shift resulted in a slightly negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 12.2m -6.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 36.5m
22
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
+7.7

Elite playmaking and efficient mid-range execution fueled a massive overall impact. He consistently manipulated the defense to create high-value looks for teammates while maintaining his own scoring rhythm. A balanced effort across hustle and defensive metrics ensured his offensive orchestration translated to a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 36.5m -18.5
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 31.3m
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.6

A surge in offensive efficiency drove a stellar net impact, capitalizing on high-percentage interior looks to shatter his recent scoring averages. He supplemented this scoring gravity with solid defensive positioning to anchor the frontcourt. The veteran's clinical shot execution was the primary engine for his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 31.3m -16.0
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 29.9m
14
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Despite a significant drop in his usual scoring volume, consistent interior finishing kept his offensive baseline stable. He salvaged a positive overall impact through steady rim protection and effort plays. Maintaining his streak of efficient shooting nights prevented his quieter offensive outing from becoming a negative.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 29.9m -15.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 23.1m
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

A catastrophic perimeter shooting slump, missing every attempt from deep, cratered his overall value and tanked his offensive gravity. While he tried to compensate with active off-ball movement and loose ball recoveries, it wasn't enough to offset the wasted possessions. The sheer volume of missed outside looks defined this highly negative outing.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 23.1m -11.7
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 19.7m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+22.3

Generated massive value through elite defensive and hustle metrics that completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. His highly efficient shot selection yielded a major scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. This two-way dominance cemented his status as the game's most impactful presence.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +7.8
Defense +10.7
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 19.7m -10.0
Impact +22.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Even with a notable scoring bump compared to his recent slump, his overall impact remained negative due to underlying inefficiencies in his floor game. Defensive lapses and a failure to generate secondary value offset his improved shooting touch. The scoring spike masked deeper rotational struggles that ultimately hurt the unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 23.0m -11.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Marginal defensive contributions and average hustle metrics couldn't quite push him into positive territory. His inability to stretch the floor on perimeter attempts limited his offensive ceiling and clogged the spacing. Ultimately, it was a pedestrian shift where he largely blended into the background without moving the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 20.4m -10.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Opportunistic scoring and steady rebounding kept his head above water despite a slight negative rating on the defensive end. He capitalized on his limited touches by converting efficiently around the basket. It was a workmanlike shift where mistake-free offense barely outweighed minor defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 19.5m -10.0
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.9

An absolute offensive black hole, missing every single shot attempt to completely derail the second unit's momentum. His inability to convert on any looks erased his usual scoring punch and resulted in a massive drop-off from his recent averages. The sheer number of empty possessions defined this disastrous stint.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 18.9m -9.6
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 17.8m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Inconsistent perimeter execution and a lack of secondary playmaking dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to find high-percentage looks inside the arc, relying too heavily on contested outside jumpers. Minimal defensive disruption meant his inefficient shooting directly harmed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 17.8m -9.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1