GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 33.6m
27
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.9

Surgical precision from the midrange and excellent defensive engagement drove a stellar +14.9 net rating. Consistently punishing switches by shooting over smaller defenders yielded highly efficient offense. Active hands and great positional awareness (+8.3 Def) proved he was fully locked in on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.3
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 33.6m -17.8
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 31.6m
17
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

A versatile, two-way effort was highlighted by excellent defensive rebounding and perimeter switchability (+6.1 Def). Acting as the primary connective tissue in transition allowed him to push the pace and dictate tempo. While half-court efficiency was merely average, a relentless motor on loose balls (+4.4 hustle) kept the overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 31.6m -16.8
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.2

Pounding the air out of the ball and settling for contested pull-ups severely damaged the team's offensive flow. An inability to break down the primary defender led to late-clock grenades and a disastrous -14.2 overall rating. The offense completely stagnated during his shifts, entirely overshadowing a few decent hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 29.9m -15.9
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

Exceptional defensive positioning (+7.0 Def) was completely undermined by a stark refusal to engage offensively. Despite shooting well historically, passing up open looks allowed his defender to roam as a free safety. This reluctance to attack the rim stalled out multiple half-court sets, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 28.3m -15.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 24.0m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Brutal finishing around the rim threatened to tank his value, but sheer aggression salvaged his overall rating. Constantly attacking the paint to draw contact compensated for a barrage of clanked jumpers. A willingness to take on physical defensive assignments (+2.3 Def) kept his impact marginally positive despite the shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 24.0m -12.8
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Outstanding weak-side rim protection (+7.3 Def) wasn't quite enough to overcome disjointed offensive spacing. Frequently clogging the driving lanes disrupted the team's slashing game and led to clunky possessions. Despite high-energy closeouts (+3.1 hustle), this awkward offensive fit yielded a slightly negative net result.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 24.5m -13.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
Jamal Shead 22.6m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Elite point-of-attack harassment (+5.2 Def) and absolute chaos generation (+7.8 hustle) defined his minutes, yet his rating still slipped negative. This defensive brilliance was undone by an inability to organize the offense or hit open spot-up looks. Opponents simply ignored him on the perimeter, completely ruining the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +7.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 22.6m -12.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.1

A catastrophic shooting performance completely cratered his impact score, resulting in a brutal -14.1 rating. Repeatedly forcing out-of-rhythm perimeter shots gifted the opponent long rebounds and easy transition opportunities. Compounding these offensive zeroes, he was frequently blown by on the perimeter (-1.1 Def).

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 20.1m -10.7
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 15.6m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Smart off-ball movement and drawing fouls compensated for a poor shooting night from the floor. Constant motion forced defensive rotations, opening up driving lanes for his teammates and boosting his box impact (+6.2). Surprisingly stout positional defense (+3.8 Def) ensured he remained a solid net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 15.6m -8.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Completely blended into the background during his extremely brief rotation minutes. Generating absolutely zero statistical impact across box, hustle, or defensive metrics left him invisible. The slight negative rating stems purely from the team losing the micro-possession battle while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -166.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Barely registered during a brief cameo, offering zero offensive gravity to stretch the floor. A lack of foot speed was briefly exposed on a defensive switch, leading to a minor negative rating (-1.5). He essentially existed as a placeholder while the primary rotation caught its breath.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -166.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Failed to make any tangible impact during his short stint on the floor. Getting caught ball-watching led to a backdoor cut that dinged his defensive metrics (-0.8). The complete absence of hustle plays or offensive involvement resulted in a quiet negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -166.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A blown assignment on an offensive set resulted in a rushed, missed shot that hurt his box impact. However, good instincts on the other end allowed him to make a solid defensive rotation (+2.3 Def) to contest a shot at the rim. These brief minutes were a mixed bag of rookie mistakes and raw defensive potential.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -166.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 36.3m
30
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.8

An absolute masterclass in shotmaking efficiency drove a towering +27.3 box impact. Ruthlessly exploiting drop coverage in the pick-and-roll allowed him to find his spots with zero hesitation. This explosive offensive surge completely overwhelmed the opposing perimeter defenders and masked any minor rotational lapses.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +27.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +36.9
Avg player in 36.3m -19.1
Impact +17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Josh Hart 35.2m
22
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.0

Phenomenal shot selection from the perimeter fueled a highly efficient offensive outing that shattered his recent scoring baseline. Relentless energy in transition and on loose balls (+6.0 hustle) consistently extended possessions and generated secondary scoring opportunities. Hitting timely catch-and-shoot daggers from the corner broke the defense's back during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 35.2m -18.7
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
22
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

A severe drop-off in scoring efficiency and poor interior touch dragged his overall impact into the negative despite heroic glass-cleaning. Settling for heavily contested looks in the paint rather than passing out of double teams severely limited the offense. Only a stout defensive presence (+8.6 Def) and ending possessions on the boards kept his rating from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 35.0m -18.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 33.7m
26
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+26.2

Elite two-way execution drove a massive +26.2 overall rating, anchored by a suffocating +15.6 defensive impact. He consistently punished defensive mismatches to generate high-quality looks, spiking his scoring efficiency well above his recent baseline. His relentless point-of-attack pressure completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +6.5
Defense +15.6
Raw total +44.0
Avg player in 33.7m -17.8
Impact +26.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 6
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jalen Brunson 29.8m
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.0

Forcing tough, contested floaters in traffic tanked his offensive value and led to a steep -9.0 overall rating. The opponent's length clearly bothered his rhythm, resulting in empty possessions and a sharp decline from his usual offensive baseline. He managed to salvage a tiny bit of value through active hands and loose-ball recoveries (+5.5 hustle).

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +5.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 29.8m -15.9
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Chucking low-percentage looks from deep derailed offensive momentum and drove a negative overall rating. He repeatedly forced heavily contested catch-and-shoot attempts early in the shot clock instead of swinging the ball. A decent effort navigating screens on defense wasn't enough to offset the wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +49.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 21.0m -11.1
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 20.1m
5
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-8.1

Despite excellent facilitation, defensive liabilities and a lack of scoring gravity severely punished his overall impact (-8.1). Opposing guards actively targeted him in isolation, bleeding points on the other end of the floor. His reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +51.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 20.1m -10.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided a brief but stable interior presence during his limited rotation minutes. Setting bruising screens and holding his ground in the post generated a slightly positive defensive impact (+1.5). He played strictly within his role, avoiding mistakes and anchoring the paint effectively while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +54.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 7.8m -4.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.1

Stellar weak-side rim protection and physical post defense (+6.7 Def) anchored a highly productive shift. Even with his scoring output dropping significantly from his recent baseline, his defensive rotations were flawless. Consistently blowing up pick-and-roll actions by hedging hard and recovering quickly defined his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 7.4m -3.9
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to generate any gravity or spacing during his stint. This offensive passivity forced the unit to essentially play four-on-five in the halfcourt. A couple of timely closeouts and deflections (+1.7 hustle) prevented his rating from slipping further.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 6.9m -3.6
Impact -2.5
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
-4.5

Forcing isolation plays against set defenses resulted in empty trips and a quick hook. Highly questionable shot selection completely halted ball movement and stalled the second unit's rhythm. This total lack of offensive production negated any marginal hustle contributions he made.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 6.8m -3.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0