GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 34.1m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

Aggressive downhill driving forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for his teammates. He showcased excellent lateral quickness on the other end, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs. This two-way versatility provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 34.1m -23.6
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Lauri Markkanen 33.2m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts dragged down his overall efficiency. While he provided solid weak-side rim protection, the inability to connect from deep allowed the defense to shrink the floor. His offensive struggles outweighed the positive defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 33.2m -23.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Keyonte George 32.7m
19
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.3

Over-dribbling into crowded paint areas led to low-percentage, heavily contested floaters. Though he flashed active hands on defense, his tendency to gamble for steals compromised the team's rotational integrity. The inefficiency as a primary creator ultimately sank his net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -31.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 32.7m -22.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jusuf Nurkić 22.6m
11
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.5

Heavy-footed pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing guards to consistently turn the corner. He salvaged his value by setting bruising screens that freed up ball-handlers in the half-court. Ultimately, the defensive mobility issues slightly edged out his interior playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -53.9
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 22.6m -15.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Svi Mykhailiuk 15.9m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc short-circuited multiple offensive sets and fueled opponent fast breaks. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, repeatedly getting beat off the dribble. The combination of bricked momentum shots and defensive breakdowns resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 15.9m -11.0
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.4

Tenacious on-ball defense completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm, generating crucial deflections. Offensively, he struggled to finish through contact at the rim, leaving potential points on the board. The elite defensive effort perfectly balanced out his finishing woes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.6
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 29.5m -20.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
22
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.8

Lethal off-the-catch shooting punished defensive lapses and provided a massive scoring punch. He targeted weaker defenders in isolation, using his frame to create separation for clean looks. Despite occasional lapses in transition defense, his scoring gravity kept his impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 26.1m -18.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.9

A reluctance to shoot open looks bogged down the offensive spacing, allowing his defender to roam freely as a helper. While his connective passing kept the ball moving, the lack of scoring threat made the half-court offense predictable. Slow defensive closeouts further contributed to the negative margin.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 21.9m -15.2
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Flawless shot selection and decisive rolls to the basket punished the opposition's drop coverage. He stretched the floor effectively, forcing opposing bigs out of the paint and opening up driving lanes. Continuing his streak of hyper-efficiency, he anchored the frontcourt with high-IQ offensive reads.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 16.8m -11.6
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Hesitancy against defensive pressure resulted in stalled possessions and disrupted offensive flow. He struggled to navigate through screens, often leaving his assignment with open looks from the perimeter. The inability to dictate the pace during his minutes led to a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +91.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 7.2m -5.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
GSW Golden State Warriors
11
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.4

Stagnant offensive execution and forced drives into traffic derailed his overall effectiveness. Despite flashing solid positional rebounding, his inability to finish through contact led to empty trips. He struggled to dictate the tempo, allowing the defense to dictate his passing angles.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 28.3m -19.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Stephen Curry 28.0m
27
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Relentless off-ball movement warped the opposing defensive shell, creating wide-open driving lanes for teammates. Even when heavily contested, his perimeter gravity forced hard closeouts that he quickly exploited with decisive secondary passes. High-energy defensive rotations further padded his positive margin.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.4%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +6.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 28.0m -19.5
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Moses Moody 25.9m
26
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+17.8

Elite perimeter shot selection drove a massive positive impact, consistently punishing defensive rotations. Active hands in passing lanes generated high-value transition opportunities that kept the offense humming. Sustaining this two-way efficiency solidifies his role as a premium floor-spacer.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +48.3
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +9.5
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 25.9m -18.0
Impact +17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Al Horford 24.1m
9
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.4

Veteran positioning anchored the frontcourt, neutralizing opposing drives through verticality rather than blocks. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely cuts and decisive ball movement out of the high post. This low-mistake, high-IQ performance perfectly stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.1
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 24.1m -16.7
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Draymond Green 22.6m
0
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.0

A complete lack of scoring gravity cratered his offensive value, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the paint. While his trademark rotational help remained solid, forcing up contested perimeter looks drained critical possessions. The inability to keep the defense honest severely limited the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -6.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 22.6m -15.8
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Point-of-attack defensive pressure was the calling card here, constantly disrupting the opponent's initiation phase. Though his finishing at the rim was erratic, he made up for it by fighting through screens and generating deflections. The gritty perimeter containment kept his overall impact slightly in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense +8.7
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 23.1m -16.0
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
Gui Santos 21.6m
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient finishing, he exploited mismatches around the basket with excellent footwork. Quick decision-making on the catch prevented the defense from recovering, maximizing his touches within the flow of the offense. His opportunistic cutting remains a reliable weapon against ball-watching defenders.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 21.6m -14.9
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Will Richard 20.4m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

An unexpected surge in offensive confidence forced the defense into uncomfortable closeouts. He paired this aggressive shot selection with disciplined closeouts of his own, shutting down baseline drives. Capitalizing on transition leak-outs proved to be the difference-maker in his highly positive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 20.4m -14.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Quinten Post 17.3m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Serviceable rim-running and capable spacing kept the defense honest during his minutes. He occasionally struggled with drop-coverage assignments, yielding too much cushion to mid-range shooters. However, his willingness to set hard screens and roll with purpose salvaged a neutral overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 17.3m -11.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Buddy Hield 17.2m
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Catch-and-shoot gravity finally reappeared, stretching the floor and punishing late defensive rotations. While his off-ball defensive awareness remains a step slow, the sheer threat of his release created vital spacing. Hitting timely momentum shots out of offensive sets kept his overall value afloat.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 17.2m -11.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Rushed decision-making during a brief rotational cameo led to a squandered possession. He failed to establish a physical presence on the block, allowing opponents to dictate the positioning battle. The short leash prevented any chance of establishing a rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -86.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 3.8m -2.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Brief garbage-time minutes offered little opportunity to influence the game's outcome. He mostly stayed out of the way offensively, deferring to teammates and maintaining basic spacing. A lack of defensive resistance during his short stint resulted in a slightly negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -86.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.8m -2.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Late defensive rotations in the paint allowed easy opponent finishes during his short time on the floor. Despite converting his lone look around the basket, his inability to secure the defensive glass hurt the unit's momentum. The overall impact suffered from a lack of physical imposition.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -86.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 3.8m -2.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2