GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
20
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

High-volume inefficiency and forced offensive actions cratered his net impact despite decent raw scoring totals. He repeatedly hijacked the offense with contested, off-the-dribble jumpers that fueled opponent transition attacks.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 34.9m -19.2
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dyson Daniels 31.5m
4
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.2

Horrific offensive execution was miraculously offset by absolute terrorization on the defensive end and relentless hustle. He blew up multiple dribble hand-offs and secured critical long rebounds to keep possessions alive.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +9.9
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 31.5m -17.4
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 30.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Corey Kispert 31.0m
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

A massive scoring surge completely masked how much he gave back on the other end, resulting in a negative net score. He was repeatedly hunted in isolation matchups, bleeding points faster than he could score them.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 31.0m -16.9
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Vít Krejčí 27.0m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Despite efficient spot-up shooting, his overall impact bled into the red due to poor defensive rotations. Opposing wings consistently targeted his closeouts, blowing past him to collapse the defense.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 27.0m -14.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection drove a positive impact despite minimal offensive usage. He deterred multiple drives during a crucial third-quarter stretch simply by maintaining verticality in the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.3
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 25.7m -14.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
CJ McCollum 30.6m
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Perimeter scoring volume hid a negative overall impact, largely driven by defensive exploitation. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, forcing the back-line defense into constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 30.6m -16.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Brutal interior finishing completely derailed his stint, dragging his net score deep into the negative. He generated decent looks through offensive rebounding but failed to convert the second-chance opportunities through contact.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 20.5m -11.2
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Asa Newell 20.3m
5
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Rushed shots in the paint and defensive lapses resulted in a heavy negative impact during his rotation minutes. He struggled with the physicality of the interior matchups, getting pushed off his spots on both ends.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 20.3m -11.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 16.4m
0
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

A complete offensive ghost whose inability to space the floor severely cramped the team's half-court offense. Defenders aggressively top-sided him, completely denying him the ball and rendering him a non-factor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 16.4m -9.1
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A fleeting appearance that yielded a single extra pass before returning to the bench. He barely had time to break a sweat in this brief rotational bridge.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 35.0m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

Defensive disruption was the undeniable catalyst here, masking a sharp dip in his usual offensive volume. He consistently jumped passing lanes and denied entry passes, turning defense into transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +13.4
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 35.0m -19.3
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 34.4m
31
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.2

Raw offensive production was heavily undercut by defensive lapses and likely live-ball turnovers, dropping his net impact far below his box score value. He settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups late in the clock rather than moving the ball against double teams.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 34.4m -18.9
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Okogie 33.8m
10
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Hyper-efficient perimeter execution and timely cuts to the basket fueled a highly positive stint. He capitalized perfectly on defensive breakdowns, punishing closeouts without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 33.8m -18.6
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.5

Elite weak-side rim rotations and switchability drove a massive defensive score, completely salvaging a rough shooting night. His ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions at the point of attack defined his high overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +15.9
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 31.6m -17.4
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 3
BLK 5
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 27.9m
9
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

A severe offensive regression and brutal interior finishing nearly erased his positive defensive contributions. Opponents successfully crowded his post touches, forcing him into rushed, off-balance hooks that killed possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 27.9m -15.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

High-volume perimeter bricking neutralized his excellent hustle and off-ball activity. He generated extra possessions via loose ball recoveries but immediately gave the value back by forcing contested jumpers early in the clock.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +40.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 25.8m -14.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Poor shot selection and clunky finishing around the rim dragged his overall impact into the negative despite solid defensive metrics. He repeatedly drove into traffic without an exit plan, stalling the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 19.2m -10.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Clint Capela 17.9m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.9

Absolute perfection in his role as a rim-runner and drop-coverage anchor yielded a massive net impact in limited action. He sealed off the paint completely during the second quarter, converting every lob and putback opportunity he saw.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +55.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.5
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 17.9m -9.9
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A lack of offensive rhythm and poor perimeter containment resulted in a decisively negative shift. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 8.0m -4.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 2.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A brief, ineffective garbage-time cameo defined by a rushed perimeter miss. He failed to establish any rhythm during his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.1m -1.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 2.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Logged empty minutes at the end of the rotation without registering a single meaningful statistical event. His stint was purely rotational filler to close out the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -1.2
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
-1.2

Burned two minutes of clock in a completely neutral appearance. He simply occupied space on the floor during the final sequences.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0