GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Isaiah Collier 29.3m
12
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-level drive-and-kick playmaking created numerous open looks, but matador defense (+0.3 Def) allowed opponents to answer immediately. He repeatedly died on ball screens, giving up middle penetration that collapsed the backline. This pattern of trading baskets resulted in a nearly flat net rating despite the offensive orchestration.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 29.3m -15.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Lauri Markkanen 29.1m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

A heavy diet of contested perimeter shots tanked his offensive efficiency and disrupted the team's rhythm. He salvaged his overall impact by leveraging his size on the glass and contesting cleanly at the rim (+3.4 Def). The sheer gravity he commanded off the ball still opened up driving lanes, offsetting the cold shooting.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 29.1m -15.3
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 28.6m
20
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Relentless shot-hunting yielded a strong scoring punch, though it occasionally short-circuited ball movement. He kept plays alive through sheer effort on the offensive glass (+3.9 Hustle), generating critical second-chance opportunities. A relatively quiet defensive showing (+0.9) meant his impact was driven almost entirely by his aggressive offensive motor.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 28.6m -15.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cody Williams 25.2m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Disciplined weak-side rotations (+3.5 Def) and active hustle (+3.8) helped stabilize the wing defense against a tough matchup. While his scoring volume dipped significantly from his recent tear, he maintained his value by taking only high-quality looks within the flow of the offense. His willingness to embrace a gritty, connective role ensured a positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 25.2m -13.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kevin Love 24.2m
3
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Bricklaying from beyond the arc allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint, severely handicapping the team's half-court offense. Although he provided elite defensive rebounding (+4.1 Def) to end possessions, the offensive dead spots were too costly. A pattern of missing wide-open trail threes completely neutralized his value.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -39.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 24.2m -12.8
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.1

A masterclass in connective basketball, utilizing brilliant passing and timely back-door cuts to shatter his recent scoring slump. His switchable defense (+4.3 Def) and elite hustle (+5.2) completely suffocated opposing forwards in isolation. He dictated the tempo entirely, proving that high IQ and positioning can dominate a game.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 24.8m -13.2
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Willingly took a backseat offensively compared to his recent scoring tears, focusing instead on high-efficiency touches. He redirected his energy into gritty loose-ball recoveries (+4.2 Hustle) and disciplined defensive closeouts (+2.9 Def). This mature, two-way approach proved highly effective against a physical wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 24.8m -13.2
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

A severe lack of offensive aggression snapped his dominant scoring streak, as he repeatedly passed up open looks. Despite strong work on the defensive glass (+2.7 Def) and active hustle (+4.0), his reluctance to attack mismatches stalled the offense. The failure to punish smaller defenders in the post dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 23.8m -12.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Tenacious point-of-attack defense (+3.5 Def) was entirely overshadowed by stagnant offensive execution. He struggled to initiate sets against ball pressure, often settling for late-clock heaves that fueled opponent transition. The inability to generate downhill rim pressure left him as a noticeable net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 18.7m -9.9
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.2

An absolute offensive black hole, missing every attempt and failing to generate any floor-spacing gravity. His poor positioning allowed help defenders to completely ignore him, bogging down the entire unit's half-court execution. Minimal defensive resistance (+1.2 Def) did nothing to stop the bleeding during a disastrous, momentum-killing stint.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -57.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -7.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total -6.1
Avg player in 11.6m -6.1
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 30.7m
16
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+7.1

Elite passing vision and active hands in the passing lanes (+9.4 Def) salvaged a brutal shooting performance. Instead of forcing contested step-backs, he manipulated the pick-and-roll to feed rollers and spot-up shooters. A pattern of timely deflections and gritty hustle (+3.9) compensated for the clanked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.4
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 30.7m -16.3
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 30.6m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.9

Absolute terror at the point of attack, generating a massive +12.4 defensive rating by blowing up dribble hand-offs. He paired this perimeter lockdown with a shocking offensive surge, aggressively attacking closeouts to shatter his recent scoring averages. Relentless ball pressure and transition hustle (+5.1) defined a game-wrecking shift.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +12.4
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 30.6m -16.2
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 27.6m
21
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.2

Methodical isolation scoring from the mid-post drove a highly efficient offensive footprint. His ability to consistently punish smaller wings on switches defined his night, forcing defensive rotations that opened the floor. Disciplined weak-side help (+2.2 Def) ensured his scoring translated directly to a winning margin.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 27.6m -14.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S John Collins 23.0m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Defensive bleeding in pick-and-roll coverage (-1.2 Def) completely erased the value of his efficient finishing. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted his drop coverage, generating uncontested floaters that fueled a negative swing. Despite extending his streak of accurate shooting, his inability to anchor the paint proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.2
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 23.0m -12.2
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ivica Zubac 22.2m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.6

Verticality at the rim (+3.1 Def) deterred multiple drives, anchoring the interior defense effectively. The impact score stalled near neutral because he was completely marginalized offensively, failing to establish deep post position against physical bigs. A pattern of setting weak screens limited his roll gravity.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 22.2m -11.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Rushed attempts early in the shot clock resulted in empty possessions that stalled the second unit's momentum. He managed to mitigate the offensive damage by utilizing his length for aggressive defensive closeouts (+4.0 Def). Still, the pattern of forcing contested drives into traffic kept his overall rating slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 25.4m -13.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 21.8m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

High-motor play on 50/50 balls (+4.0 Hustle) showcased excellent energy, extending several crucial possessions. Unfortunately, poor lateral quickness on the perimeter (-0.7 Def) led to consistent blow-bys that compromised the defensive shell. A slight dip from his usually blistering efficiency meant his offensive output couldn't cover the defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.7
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 21.8m -11.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

A sudden resurgence in spot-up shooting provided a much-needed spacing element after a prolonged slump. However, heavy legs on defensive closeouts (-0.3 Def) allowed opposing wings to shoot over him with ease. The veteran's inability to slide his feet against quicker matchups ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 21.4m -11.3
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Brook Lopez 20.1m
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.4

Imposing drop coverage (+7.1 Def) completely walled off the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage mid-range pull-ups. He stretched the floor effectively on the other end, pulling the opposing center out of the lane to create driving angles for guards. This dual-threat pattern of rim deterrence and deep spacing dictated the game's geometry.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.1
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 20.1m -10.7
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Brown 5.7m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

A drastic reduction in offensive assertiveness snapped his streak of high-efficiency scoring nights. He floated on the perimeter rather than attacking the seams, failing to pressure the rim. Ultimately, a single converted jumper was the only notable event in a highly passive, low-impact shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -91.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 5.7m -3.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Looked completely lost during a brief stint, failing to generate any separation off the dribble. His inability to navigate screens left him trailing plays defensively, offering zero resistance at the point of attack. A pattern of passive positioning rendered him a total non-factor on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -91.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 5.7m -3.0
Impact -2.4
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
-4.8

Physically overwhelmed in the paint, yielding deep post position and easy defensive concessions (-0.9 Def). He failed to match the game's physicality, getting consistently boxed out on the glass. The lack of functional strength or rotational awareness quickly cratered his overall impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -91.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 5.7m -3.0
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0