GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 38.1m
49
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+29.1

Put together an absolute masterclass of offensive efficiency, dominating his matchups to generate a monstrous positive impact. He paired this historic scoring surge with elite, suffocating defense, making him the undisputed engine of the team. A generational two-way performance that single-handedly dictated the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 20/29 (69.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.4%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +41.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +52.9
Avg player in 38.1m -23.8
Impact +29.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S P.J. Washington 35.1m
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Wasted a multitude of offensive possessions with highly inefficient, volume-heavy shot selection. While his defensive engagement and hustle were commendable, the sheer number of clanked jumpers destroyed his overall net rating. The offense bogged down significantly whenever he tried to create in isolation.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.6
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 35.1m -21.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Max Christie 29.2m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Undermined a solid defensive outing by repeatedly settling for, and missing, low-quality looks from beyond the arc. The abysmal perimeter shooting efficiency acted as an anchor on his net impact. He increased his scoring volume but did so at a massive cost to the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 29.2m -18.2
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Caleb Martin 27.2m
6
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Delivered robust perimeter defense but negated that value with a lack of offensive assertiveness inside the arc. The missed interior looks and low overall volume dragged his net impact deeply into the red. He essentially operated as a one-way player who couldn't punish defensive closeouts.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.0
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 27.2m -16.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Daniel Gafford 25.2m
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Starved for touches, his offensive production plummeted well below his recent highly-efficient standards. The lack of involvement around the rim limited his baseline value, while his defensive presence wasn't dominant enough to keep his overall impact out of the negative. Opponents successfully schemed away his lob threats.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 25.2m -15.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Hunted his shot aggressively from deep, but the high volume of missed triples ultimately damaged the team's offensive efficiency. His defensive impact was negligible, meaning he offered very little resistance when his jumper wasn't falling. The scoring bump was entirely offset by the wasted possessions required to get there.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 27.0m -16.9
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.8

Sliced through the defense with highly efficient interior penetration, driving a strong positive baseline metric. His ability to organize the offense without forcing bad perimeter shots perfectly complemented his active point-of-attack defense. A highly controlled and impactful shift from the backup guard spot.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +34.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 20.9m -13.1
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 17.3m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Made his money entirely on the defensive end, acting as a formidable deterrent in the paint despite zero offensive usage. His energy and rim protection stabilized the second unit, driving a solid positive net impact. A perfect example of a player knowing his role and executing it without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 17.3m -10.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Struggled mightily to find his stroke, bricking all his attempts and stalling the offense during his minutes. While he offered some minor defensive resistance, the inability to punish drop coverage kept his net impact in the red. A frustrating shift defined by missed opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 9.2m -5.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Suffered a complete power outage compared to his recent scoring tear, failing to score in a highly truncated rotation appearance. The lack of offensive rhythm and zero hustle stats left him with a negative overall footprint. He couldn't find the flow of the game before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 5.7m -3.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Barely factored into the game during a short, five-minute stint where he failed to attempt a single shot. Slight defensive missteps pushed his minimal impact just below neutral. Served strictly as emergency frontcourt depth.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 5.0m -3.1
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 38.2m
17
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.5

Despite offering strong defensive resistance, his overall impact plummeted into the negative due to poor shot selection and clunky perimeter execution. A significant drop in his usual finishing efficiency dragged down his offensive value. The defensive effort couldn't salvage the wasted possessions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.6
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 38.2m -23.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 36.4m
34
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.2

Exploded offensively with elite perimeter shot-making, doubling his usual scoring output through sheer efficiency from deep. The massive positive box score metric was the primary driver of his elite overall rating, complemented by solid rotational defense. A career-defining shooting display that completely warped the opponent's defensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 8/12 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.2%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +30.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +40.8
Avg player in 36.4m -22.6
Impact +18.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 56.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moussa Diabaté 32.1m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Maintained his highly reliable interior finishing, extending his streak of efficient shooting nights. However, his overall impact hovered just below neutral as his solid defensive metrics and hustle plays weren't quite enough to overcome the team's broader struggles during his minutes. He played his role well but lacked the dynamic playmaking to swing the game.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 32.1m -19.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 30.8m
22
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.8

Bounced back from a recent shooting slump by catching fire from beyond the arc, generating a strong positive baseline metric. However, his overall impact slipped slightly into the red, suggesting hidden costs like defensive lapses or poorly timed turnovers during crucial stretches. The perimeter barrage masked a lack of two-way resistance.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 30.8m -19.2
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Brandon Miller 26.8m
23
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.5

Carried the offensive load with crisp, efficient shot creation, continuing his hot streak of high-percentage scoring. His value was almost entirely tied to his scoring gravity, as his defensive and hustle metrics were largely invisible. The sheer quality of his looks kept his net impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 26.8m -16.6
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Suffered a severe drop-off from his recent scoring tear, forcing contested looks that tanked his efficiency. The missed shots fueled opponent transition opportunities, dragging his total impact into the negative despite decent defensive metrics. His inability to adapt his shot selection when the primary actions broke down proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 20.3m -12.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Sion James 15.7m
0
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

Completely vanished on the offensive end, failing to register a single point while bricking all his attempts. This offensive black hole cratered his net impact, completely erasing the mild defensive resistance he offered. The inability to capitalize on open looks made him unplayable down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 15.7m -9.7
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Anchored the paint effectively in limited minutes, using his size to generate a positive defensive impact. While his offensive touches were minimal, he didn't force bad shots and stayed within his highly efficient finishing profile. A textbook low-usage, high-reliability rotational shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 15.4m -9.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Green 14.5m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Provided a spark of energy with active hustle plays, but his extreme passivity on offense severely limited his utility. A negative defensive rating compounded the issue, making him a liability during his brief rotation stint. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, stalling the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 14.5m -9.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Made his presence felt defensively during a very brief cameo, disrupting passing lanes and contesting shots. Offensively, he was a non-factor, keeping his overall impact slightly negative. A purely developmental shift focused entirely on defensive reps.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 9.8m -6.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2