GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 34.6m
26
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.9

Exploded out of a recent slump by aggressively attacking the paint and finishing through contact. His on-ball defensive pressure resulted in crucial deflections that ignited the fast break. Shot selection was vastly improved, trading contested long twos for high-value rim attempts and catch-and-shoot threes.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.2
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 34.6m -20.9
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 34.2m
14
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack with textbook verticality and rim deterrence. Offensively, he feasted on lob finishes and generated massive gravity rolling to the basket. A dominant stretch of offensive rebounding in the fourth quarter sealed his immense two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 34.2m -20.7
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.9

Active hands in the passing lanes boosted his defensive metrics, but reckless offensive decision-making tanked his overall score. He forced several heavily contested transition threes that functioned as live-ball turnovers. Defensive over-helps also left his primary assignment open for back-breaking corner triples.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 31.5m -19.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 30.8m
21
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.0

An absolute flamethrower from the perimeter, punishing defensive sags with flawless outside shooting. His length bothered primary ball-handlers all night, funneling drivers into the waiting rim protection. This two-way clinic was defined by a third-quarter barrage that completely shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 5/5 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 30.8m -18.7
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Julius Randle 24.7m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.5

Overcame a sluggish shooting night by anchoring the defensive glass and playing highly physical post defense. He drew multiple offensive fouls on drives, swinging extra possessions to his team. While his isolation touches stalled out, his playmaking out of double teams salvaged his offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.8
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 24.7m -15.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
Naz Reid 28.7m
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Provided a massive scoring punch as a trail big, knocking down pick-and-pop threes with high efficiency. However, his struggles to defend in space against quicker forwards negated his offensive output. Poor closeouts and a pair of bad shooting fouls kept his net impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 28.7m -17.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Bones Hyland 23.5m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.7

Impact cratered due to erratic shot selection and a string of unforced ball-handling errors that ignited opponent fast breaks. He consistently hijacked the offense by pounding the air out of the ball late in the clock. Defensive gambles for steals repeatedly compromised the team's shell, leading to easy layups.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 23.5m -14.2
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
Jaylen Clark 14.7m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Capitalized on limited touches by making decisive cuts and finishing cleanly in traffic. He avoided the careless turnovers that often plague young guards, maintaining a steady offensive flow. His disciplined navigation of off-ball screens prevented easy catch-and-shoot opportunities for his matchup.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 14.7m -8.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Joe Ingles 3.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a brief stint, getting blown by on defense multiple times. His lack of foot speed forced teammates into emergency rotations that yielded open shots. Offered zero offensive gravity, allowing his defender to freely roam and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -115.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Managed a slightly positive impact by hitting a timely jumper and executing defensive schemes without error. He stayed attached to his man off the ball, denying easy catch-and-shoot looks. A quiet but mistake-free performance that kept the rotation stable.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -115.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Looked completely lost within the offensive sets, clogging driving lanes and ruining the spacing. He was consistently late on defensive closeouts, giving up clean looks from the perimeter. A pair of illegal screens in quick succession severely damaged his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -115.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Failed to make an imprint on the game, largely floating on the perimeter without setting meaningful screens. Defensive miscommunications in transition allowed the opponent to secure easy cross-matches. His inability to secure contested rebounds gave away valuable extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -115.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Offensive value plummeted after a series of wild, off-balance drives that resulted in empty trips and transition run-outs. He struggled to organize the half-court offense, frequently picking up his dribble in bad spots. While his on-ball defensive effort was solid, the offensive disorganization was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -115.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -4.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
30
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.3

Methodical isolation scoring and elite foul-drawing generated a massive box score impact. He consistently exploited switches, punishing mismatches with surgical precision in the midrange. His ability to collapse the defense and avoid turnovers ensured every possession yielded high-quality looks.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 31.4m -19.0
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Chet Holmgren 30.0m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.4

Completely controlled the paint, utilizing his length to alter shots at the rim and secure a massive defensive rating. Offensively, his shot selection was pristine, taking only high-value looks within the flow of the offense. A dominant third-quarter stretch of rim protection and trail threes broke the game open.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +9.5
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 30.0m -18.0
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 27.3m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and loose balls spiked his hustle metrics, but poor offensive execution cratered his overall impact. He settled for heavily contested jumpers early in possessions, short-circuiting the team's half-court rhythm. Foul trouble defending the point of attack also limited his defensive effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +7.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 27.3m -16.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylin Williams 27.0m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Anchored the drop coverage effectively to generate a high defensive score, but offensive clunkiness negated that value. He forced several contested looks late in the shot clock, leading to empty possessions. A pair of moving screens further suppressed his offensive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.3
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 27.0m -16.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Wiggins 24.8m
10
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite a strong defensive rating driven by aggressive perimeter closeouts, hidden mistakes dragged down his overall value. Three costly live-ball turnovers in the second quarter fueled opponent transition run-outs. His efficient scoring was ultimately overshadowed by these momentum-killing errors.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -33.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 24.8m -15.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Thrived as a secondary creator, using decisive drives to punish closeouts when his outside shot wasn't falling. His point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation during a crucial second-half run. Excellent ball security and timely cuts kept his offensive value firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 25.5m -15.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 25.2m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Perimeter defensive rotations were sharp, but his inability to connect on open looks severely hampered the floor spacing. Opponents aggressively stunted off him, bogging down the primary actions. Two costly transition take fouls further eroded his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 25.2m -15.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Generated highly efficient offense through elite screening and finishing out of the pick-and-roll. However, his drop coverage was repeatedly exploited by pull-up shooters, driving his defensive metrics into the negative. The inability to secure contested defensive rebounds allowed crucial second-chance points.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 18.3m -11.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Found success cutting to the basket for efficient finishes, yet his overall impact suffered from poor spacing gravity. Defensive miscommunications in transition led to easy opponent layups, offsetting his scoring bump. A tendency to over-help on drives left shooters wide open in the corners.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 18.1m -11.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Maximized brief floor time by executing the offensive system flawlessly and finishing a high-leverage backdoor cut. Stayed disciplined in his defensive assignments without gambling or fouling. This low-mistake, high-efficiency stint provided a clean positive boost.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 4.2m -2.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Despite a steep drop in scoring volume, he salvaged his impact through disciplined weak-side defensive rotations. He contested effectively at the rim without fouling, altering several late-clock attempts. Kept the ball moving offensively even when his own shot wasn't available.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 4.2m -2.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Provided a quick spark by hunting his shot aggressively, though the execution was erratic. His willingness to take contested looks stretched the defense just enough to open driving lanes for teammates. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the value he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 4.2m -2.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0