Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHX lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
PHX 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 182 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Hunter 7/15 -0.2
Tyson 7/13 +2.4
Mitchell Hard 6/12 +3.4
Merrill Hard 4/12 -1.7
Allen Open 6/9 +2.0
Tomlin Open 6/9 +0.2
Ball Hard 1/8 -4.6
Bryant Hard 3/6 +3.3
Nance Jr. Open 3/5 +0.8
Proctor 1/5 -3.9

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Brooks Hard 9/14 +7.7
Goodwin Hard 6/11 +5.0
Green Hard 4/9 +2.7
Williams Open 5/9 -1.2
Gillespie Hard 5/8 +7.1
O'Neale Hard 4/8 +5.6
Allen 4/8 +1.1
Bouyea Hard 3/6 +1.1
Dunn 0/5 -5.9
Fleming 2/3 +1.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
PHX
45/97 Field Goals 45/85
46.4% Field Goal % 52.9%
15/48 3-Pointers 23/48
31.2% 3-Point % 47.9%
8/11 Free Throws 13/18
72.7% Free Throw % 72.2%
55.5% True Shooting % 67.8%
52 Total Rebounds 49
16 Offensive 9
27 Defensive 34
34 Assists 31
1.55 Assist/TO Ratio 1.41
22 Turnovers 20
13 Steals 15
2 Blocks 5
17 Fouls 19
56 Points in Paint 34
16 Fast Break Pts 34
31 Points off TOs 36
22 Second Chance Pts 3
56 Bench Points 48
5 Largest Lead 33
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Dillon Brooks
27 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 24.4 MIN
+22.66
2
Jordan Goodwin
17 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 22.3 MIN
+20.72
3
Jarrett Allen
12 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 23.1 MIN
+17.82
4
Nae'Qwan Tomlin
14 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 24.9 MIN
+16.76
5
Larry Nance Jr.
9 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 10.2 MIN
+16.07
6
Collin Gillespie
16 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 24.1 MIN
+15.97
7
Jaylon Tyson
16 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 25.4 MIN
+13.94
8
Mark Williams
10 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 23.4 MIN
+13.71
9
Grayson Allen
13 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 26.9 MIN
+11.92
10
Royce O'Neale
12 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 23.9 MIN
+11.8
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:17 PHX shot clock Team TURNOVER 113–126
Q4 0:35 L. Nance Jr. personal FOUL (1 PF) 113–126
Q4 0:35 I. Livers REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 113–126
Q4 0:40 MISS L. Ball 26' running 3PT 113–126
Q4 0:42 T. Bryant REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 113–126
Q4 0:47 MISS J. Bouyea 27' 3PT 113–126
Q4 1:10 N. Tomlin running alley-oop DUNK (14 PTS) (T. Proctor 5 AST) 113–126
Q4 1:12 N. Tomlin STEAL (2 STL) 111–126
Q4 1:12 N. Hayes-Davis lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 111–126
Q4 1:21 L. Ball 29' 3PT (3 PTS) (T. Bryant 6 AST) 111–126
Q4 1:44 R. Fleming running Layup (5 PTS) 108–126
Q4 1:49 R. Fleming REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 108–124
Q4 1:53 MISS T. Proctor 25' pullup 3PT 108–124
Q4 2:06 T. Bryant REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 108–124
Q4 2:08 MISS I. Livers Free Throw 2 of 2 108–124

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Grayson Allen 26.9m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.1

Solid defensive metrics and improved shot selection kept his head above water, though his overall impact remained relatively flat. He functioned effectively as a secondary connector, moving the ball quickly rather than letting it stick against set defenses. A few mistimed gambles in the passing lanes allowed backdoor cuts that slightly undercut his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 24.4m
27
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.8

A scorching, highly efficient scoring performance shattered his recent averages and anchored the team's offensive success. He punished defenders who went under screens, confidently stepping into rhythm jumpers without hesitation. His physical, chest-to-chest defense on the opposing team's primary wing scorer set a tone of aggression that resonated throughout the lineup.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 77.1%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +46.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +23.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.1

Lethal perimeter efficiency and scrappy point-of-attack defense fueled a breakout performance that far exceeded his recent baseline. He expertly navigated drop coverage, punishing retreating bigs with quick-trigger pull-ups. His constant harassment of opposing ball-handlers generated crucial deflections that disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 23.9m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Elite floor-spacing and timely weak-side rotations provided a steady, stabilizing presence. He exclusively hunted high-value perimeter looks, punishing the defense every time they collapsed on the roll man. His willingness to sacrifice his body on closeouts and secure long rebounds added hidden value beyond his shooting gravity.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Mark Williams 23.4m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Dominant rim deterrence and relentless activity on the interior drove a highly positive overall impact. He consistently altered shots at the summit, forcing guards to rethink their drives and kick the ball out late in the clock. Offensively, his hard rim-runs commanded constant attention, opening up the perimeter for his shooters.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +7.0
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.6

A phenomenal two-way masterclass defined by suffocating perimeter defense and scorching outside shooting. He completely locked down his primary assignment, fighting through screens with relentless physicality to blow up dribble hand-offs. On the other end, his confidence as a catch-and-shoot threat punished the defense for over-helping on drives.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 21.8m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Despite a severe drop in offensive usage, his elite defensive positioning and hustle kept his impact in the green. He embraced a purely connective role, setting bone-crushing screens that freed up the primary ball-handlers. His ability to hedge hard on pick-and-rolls and recover to the paint neutralized the opponent's primary offensive action.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.8

Sloppy ball security and poor transition defense dragged his impact into the negative despite a slight uptick in scoring efficiency. He telegraphed too many passes into tight windows, sparking fast-break opportunities going the other way. The positive defensive metrics largely reflect his team's overall scheme rather than his individual point-of-attack containment.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Ryan Dunn 17.7m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-19.4

An absolute offensive black hole who completely torpedoed the team's spacing with a barrage of missed perimeter looks. Defenders treated him as a non-threat, aggressively sagging off to double-team the post and clog driving lanes. While his defensive effort remained adequate, his inability to convert even wide-open shots made him unplayable down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring -4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Jalen Green 15.6m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

A sharp drop in scoring volume and a lack of off-ball engagement resulted in a slightly negative overall impact. He struggled to find a rhythm against physical perimeter coverage, frequently settling for contested isolation jumpers rather than attacking the paint. While his individual defensive metrics held up, his inability to bend the defense offensively stalled several possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of quicker wings resulted in a bleeding impact during his brief stint. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, giving up straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell. A quick trigger from deep wasn't enough to offset the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -72.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A lack of defensive awareness negated a highly efficient offensive cameo. He struggled with his weak-side rotations, consistently arriving late to contest rim attempts. While he capitalized on his limited offensive touches, his inability to anchor the paint made it difficult to keep him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -86.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

A disastrous micro-shift saw him bleed value rapidly through poor positioning and sluggish transition defense. He was caught ball-watching on multiple possessions, allowing easy back-door cuts that instantly punished the defense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -92.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Barely saw the floor, functioning strictly as a brief placeholder at the end of the rotation. He failed to record any meaningful statistics, simply filling space while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -92.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -1.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.0

A disastrous overall impact score stems from a high volume of uncharacteristic live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses in transition. While his defensive metrics look solid in the half-court, his careless ball-handling at the top of the key consistently ignited the opponent's fast break. The scoring output was merely a facade that masked how much value he bled away through sloppy decision-making.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -19.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 8
S Jaylon Tyson 25.4m
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

A massive scoring surge well above his recent baseline fueled a strong offensive rating, though defensive limitations kept his overall impact grounded. His aggressive downhill drives consistently broke down the primary coverage, creating high-value kickouts and rim attempts. Positive hustle metrics reflect critical loose-ball recoveries that extended possessions during a key second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -52.7
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jarrett Allen 23.1m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.5

Elite defensive anchoring and hyper-efficient interior finishing drove a dominant double-digit Net Impact. He completely sealed off the paint, deterring multiple drives and forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Continuing a trend of flawless shot selection, he refused to force action, letting the game come to him as a lob threat and rim-runner.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dean Wade 20.0m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Elite hustle metrics salvaged what was otherwise a highly passive offensive showing that dragged down his overall impact. He passed up multiple open perimeter looks, bogging down the half-court flow and allowing defenders to sag into the paint. Despite the lack of scoring punch, his relentless off-ball screening and timely closeouts prevented the lineup from completely cratering.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Merrill 18.8m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Poor shot selection and defensive liabilities dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. He repeatedly forced contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum and sparking opponent transition opportunities. Opposing guards actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, exposing his lateral slowness on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

An unexpected offensive explosion perfectly complemented his elite weak-side rim protection to generate a massive positive impact. He capitalized on broken plays and offensive glass opportunities, converting high-percentage looks around the basket. His ability to switch onto smaller guards late in the shot clock completely short-circuited the opponent's perimeter attack.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.1

Stretching the floor effectively as a trailing big man opened up vital driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. His defensive positioning was surprisingly stout, as he consistently showed hard on screens and recovered nicely to the paint. A few ill-advised fouls in the bonus slightly dampened what was otherwise a highly efficient two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 24.6m
3
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.1

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense was entirely undone by a catastrophic shooting performance that crippled the team's spacing. Defenders completely abandoned him on the perimeter, packing the paint and neutralizing driving lanes for his teammates. Even his trademark transition hit-aheads couldn't compensate for the dead-weight effect of his missed outside looks.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring -2.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Strong on-ball defensive metrics were offset by a high volume of clanked perimeter shots that stalled the offense. He settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups rather than attacking closeouts, resulting in empty possessions. His inability to convert from deep allowed the opposition to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes during crucial third-quarter sets.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.5

A sharp regression in shooting efficiency completely derailed his offensive rhythm and cratered his overall impact. He struggled to create separation against physical point-of-attack defenders, leading to forced passes and disrupted offensive sets. Despite active hands in the passing lanes, his inability to knock down open corner looks made him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.4

Hyper-efficient execution in a brief stint maximized his value, driving a stellar positive Net Impact. He operated flawlessly as a short-roll playmaker, making quick reads that led directly to high-percentage scores. Defensively, his flawless rotations blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions before they could even materialize.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +67.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0