GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 34.2m
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Elite defensive disruption (+6.7) that consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions elevated his overall profile. He translated deflections into immediate transition opportunities, punishing the opponent's carelessness. Continuing a strong recent stretch, his aggressive cuts to the basket exploited over-helping defenders.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 34.2m -17.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 33.0m
27
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.8

By surgically navigating the pick-and-roll and effortlessly manipulating drop coverages, he fueled a massive positive impact. He created a steady diet of high-quality looks for both himself and his rollers, dissecting the defensive shell. Strong point-of-attack ball pressure (+5.5 Def) rounded out a dominant two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 33.0m -16.7
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Bruising screen-setting and physical interior defense (+3.4) anchored a solid positive impact despite a clunky shooting night. He generated crucial extra possessions by bullying his way to loose balls in the paint. The sheer gravitational pull of his deep post-ups created passing lanes that offset his missed hook shots.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 24.6m -12.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Spencer Jones 15.2m
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

A complete failure to connect on any field goal attempts drove a catastrophic -10.1 total impact. He was consistently a step slow on closeouts (-0.5 Def), allowing shooters to step into uncontested rhythm jumpers. This complete lack of rim pressure and defensive awareness rendered his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -75.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 15.2m -7.7
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Pickett 15.0m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

When defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, his lack of scoring gravity destroyed offensive spacing and tanked his net rating. His hesitance to attack the paint routinely stalled out the second-unit offense late in the shot clock. While he provided adequate point-of-attack ball pressure (+1.2 Def), it wasn't enough to offset the offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 15.0m -7.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 33.0m
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Hidden behind his streak of hyper-efficient finishing was a deeply negative overall impact, driven by poor off-ball defensive rotations. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, bleeding points that erased his offensive contributions. While the shot selection was pristine, his inability to navigate off-ball screens proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 33.0m -16.8
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
25
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.2

A relentless hunt for transition threes shattered his recent slump and skyrocketed his net value. He broke the opponent's defensive shell before it could set, capitalizing on chaotic closeouts. Surprisingly stout perimeter defense (+5.1) ensured this offensive explosion wasn't immediately given back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 27.6m -13.9
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 22.8m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

High-motor hustle plays (+4.1) and timely tip-outs allowed him to thrive in the dirty work, keeping his impact firmly in the black. He provided crucial vertical rim protection, altering shots without fouling. A vast improvement in finishing through contact compared to recent outings stabilized his low-usage minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 22.8m -11.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Tenacious defensive rotations (+4.2) and a willingness to sacrifice his body scraped out a slightly positive rating. He broke out of a severe shooting slump just enough to keep perimeter defenders honest. Diving for loose balls and taking charges (+2.7 Hustle) provided a much-needed energy injection for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 21.9m -11.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Hunter Tyson 12.7m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Passing up open looks allowed the defense to pack the paint, resulting in a deeply negative stint. He was completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to provide the requisite floor spacing. A glaring lack of physical resistance on the defensive glass further compounded his detrimental impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 12.7m -6.4
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BKN Brooklyn Nets
38
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.6

Relentless perimeter shot-making against drop coverages skyrocketed his overall value. He compounded this offensive gravity with stellar defensive positioning (+7.8), frequently deterring drives before they reached the paint. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he generated made him the defining force of the contest.

Shooting
FG 13/28 (46.4%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 38.3%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +27.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.8
Raw total +38.4
Avg player in 37.1m -18.8
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 31.3m
10
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.2

Operating as an offensive hub from the high post, his crisp passing to cutters kept his impact firmly in the green. He paired this playmaking with exceptional hustle (+4.6) and disciplined shot contests. Anchoring the interior without committing costly fouls defined his highly effective two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 31.3m -15.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nolan Traore 30.3m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

Defensive miscommunications and an inability to contain dribble penetration severely undercut his value. He frequently died on screens, bleeding points that drove his overall impact into the red. Offensively, a lack of off-ball movement made him a stationary target, stalling out half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 30.3m -15.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Terance Mann 28.9m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Forced shot selection late in the clock dragged down his overall rating, despite breaking out of a recent scoring slump. He fought admirably through screens to generate solid hustle metrics (+3.8), but clanked too many contested interior looks. These empty possessions ultimately stalled the offense and fueled transition opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 28.9m -14.7
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Danny Wolf 27.6m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Costly perimeter misses and a tendency to float outside the arc tanked his overall rating. He failed to provide adequate rim resistance, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. This inability to anchor the paint ultimately negated any modest offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 27.6m -13.9
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Drake Powell 20.0m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Repeatedly targeted on defensive switches, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards plummeted his overall impact. He surrendered multiple straight-line drives that completely collapsed the defensive shell. While a few timely perimeter makes kept the offense afloat, his porous point-of-attack defense defined the negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 20.0m -10.1
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Saraf 17.7m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.4

A complete inability to punish closeouts or convert open looks cratered his overall impact. Defenders aggressively sagged off him to clog the paint, stalling multiple offensive possessions. He attempted to salvage his shift with active hands in passing lanes (+2.1 Hustle), but the lack of scoring gravity proved too detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 17.7m -8.9
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Wasting multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities from deep heavily penalized his offensive rating. The resulting long rebounds sparked opponent transition breaks, dragging his total impact into the negative. He managed to salvage a shred of value through sturdy point-of-attack defense (+2.1), but the forced shot selection was glaring.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -51.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 17.4m -8.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

Relentless glass-cleaning and dominant interior positioning (+5.2 Def) maximized his value during a highly efficient stint. He consistently walled off the paint, forcing ball-handlers into heavily contested, low-percentage floaters. On the other end, timely rim-runs and putbacks ensured every offensive touch generated positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 16.7m -8.5
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 13.0m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Crisp defensive rotations (+2.6) and timely closeouts defined a highly productive burst off the bench. He effectively stunted drives and recovered to shooters, neutralizing multiple offensive actions. Capitalizing on high-leverage perimeter looks further cemented his positive two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 13.0m -6.6
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0