GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Grayson Allen 34.1m
24
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.0

A heavy volume of missed perimeter shots suppressed what could have been a dominant offensive rating. However, his constant off-ball movement and gravity kept the floor spaced, allowing his net impact to barely stay in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 34.1m -16.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 32.7m
40
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+24.4

An explosive scoring surge paired with suffocating perimeter defense (+4.5 Def) resulted in a massive +24.4 net impact. His relentless isolation scoring against mismatches completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme and carried the offensive load.

Shooting
FG 13/22 (59.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 40.8%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +32.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +39.8
Avg player in 32.7m -15.4
Impact +24.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 28.3m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Strong hustle metrics (+3.6) were undone by defensive lapses (-0.5 Def) and a failure to secure defensive rebounds. Repeatedly losing his man on weakside closeouts allowed back-breaking corner threes that tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 28.3m -13.3
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Excellent defensive ball pressure (+3.7 Def) and timely perimeter shooting nearly pushed his impact into positive territory. The damage came from several ill-advised live-ball turnovers when attempting to force passes through tight pick-and-roll windows.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 25.6m -12.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mark Williams 24.8m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-level rim protection (+2.5 Def) and active screening (+3.8 Hustle) kept his impact near neutral despite a low-usage offensive night. A tendency to fumble interior passes prevented him from capitalizing on deep post seals, capping his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 24.8m -11.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite defensive disruption (+4.0 Def) and relentless loose-ball recovery (+3.5 Hustle) almost entirely masked his offensive struggles. His inability to punish defenders for going under screens ultimately kept his total score slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +45.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 22.6m -10.7
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 20.4m
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Despite highly efficient finishing around the basket, his overall impact suffered from a lack of rim deterrence. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in drop coverage, leading to easy floaters that chipped away at his defensive value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +43.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 20.4m -9.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense (+5.2 Def) was dragged down by a string of empty offensive possessions. Forcing contested floaters instead of moving the ball stalled the secondary unit's momentum and resulted in a negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 20.0m -9.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 13.2m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A lack of defensive awareness (-0.2 Def) and minimal hustle contributions resulted in a noticeably negative stint. Consistently getting caught ball-watching allowed his assignment to generate easy backdoor points that hurt the team's defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 13.2m -6.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Generated positive value entirely through connective passing and stout positional defense (+2.4 Def) without attempting a single field goal. His ability to execute crisp defensive switches prevented several breakdown situations and stabilized the unit.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 11.4m -5.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A disastrously short stint was defined by immediate negative plays on the offensive end. Jacking up a contested perimeter shot early in the clock instantly killed the team's offensive flow and tanked his impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Managed to secure a few loose balls but otherwise floated through his brief appearance. A failure to close out on perimeter shooters during a short rotational stint resulted in a slightly negative output driven by defensive passivity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive miscommunications (-0.6 Def) immediately punished his short time on the court. Failing to establish post position or alter shots at the rim left the interior completely vulnerable to driving guards.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 33.6m
26
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.3

Tremendous two-way activity (+6.2 Hustle, +8.2 Def) heavily outweighed the damage from a high volume of missed shots. His point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's primary actions, keeping his net impact highly positive despite the inefficient scoring output.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +6.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 33.6m -15.9
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 30.3m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

A severe drop in perimeter efficiency cratered his overall impact (-8.9) as opponents aggressively chased him off the line. Forcing contested looks from deep rather than keeping the ball moving stalled several crucial offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 30.3m -14.3
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 29.6m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Solid defensive positioning (+4.0 Def) kept him afloat, but poor shot selection ultimately capped his value. Settling for contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive flow and led to empty trips.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 29.6m -13.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 28.3m
23
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.3

Complete dominance in the paint drove a massive +22.3 impact score, fueled by relentless rim-running and finishing through contact. His ability to anchor the drop coverage (+5.8 Def) while maintaining incredible offensive efficiency completely dictated the terms of the frontcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +28.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +35.6
Avg player in 28.3m -13.3
Impact +22.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 25.1m
6
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.0

Despite generating positive value through loose ball recoveries (+2.8 Hustle), his overall impact sank into the red due to offensive passivity. A distinct pattern of passing up open perimeter looks allowed the defense to sag into the paint and choke off driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 25.1m -11.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Efficient interior finishing wasn't enough to overcome a lack of rebounding presence, dragging his net score slightly into the red. Repeatedly getting sealed out of the paint on defensive glass sequences neutralized his otherwise solid physical defense (+2.6 Def).

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 23.6m -11.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.0

High-energy hustle plays (+3.5) were entirely offset by poor shot selection and a steep drop-off from his usual scoring efficiency. A pattern of driving into crowded lanes rather than resetting the offense led to low-quality attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 22.5m -10.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Completely neutralized on the offensive end, his inability to connect from the floor severely punished the team's spacing. A persistent pattern of forcing contested drives into traffic resulted in a sheer volume of empty trips that defined his heavily negative output.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 17.0m -8.0
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Active hands and decent rotational defense (+1.4 Def) couldn't mask the offensive void he left on the floor. Missing multiple wide-open corner threes allowed the defense to aggressively double the primary ball-handlers without penalty.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -58.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 11.3m -5.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 7.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Empty offensive trips and rushed decisions in transition quickly sank his impact during a brief stint. A failure to read the weakside help led to forced drives into heavy traffic, resulting in wasted possessions and opponent run-outs.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 7.3m -3.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 3.8m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Made an immediate positive impact in limited minutes through highly disruptive defensive rotations (+2.6 Def). His ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions at the level of the screen created instant value despite the minimal offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 3.8m -1.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a short stint, offering little beyond basic defensive positioning. A rushed perimeter attempt early in the shot clock highlighted a lack of offensive rhythm and quickly pushed his impact negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.8m -1.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Failed to register any meaningful hustle or defensive metrics, leading to a quick negative impact score. Getting consistently beat on back-door cuts exposed his lack of situational awareness during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 3.8m -1.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0