GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 32.3m
26
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.9

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll completely dismantled the opposing defense. He manipulated screen coverages with elite pace, consistently finding the roll man or punishing under-the-screen coverages with decisive pull-ups. The offensive brilliance was complemented by active, disruptive hands on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 32.3m -14.4
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 29.3m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Energized the lineup with a relentless motor, generating crucial extra possessions through sheer hustle. He thrived in chaotic sequences, turning broken plays into high-value transition opportunities. His length at the point of attack disrupted the opponent's primary ball-handlers all night.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 29.3m -13.1
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cody Williams 28.5m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Offensive production dipped significantly as he struggled to finish through contact at the rim. Despite the scoring drought, he maintained value through relentless weak-side defensive rotations and active hands in the passing lanes. His transition defense neutralized multiple fast-break opportunities, keeping the overall impact from cratering.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 28.5m -12.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 28.5m
14
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

While his raw scoring output dipped from recent highs, his physical screening and high-post facilitation kept the offense humming. He consistently sealed his man early in transition, forcing defensive mismatches before the half-court set even materialized. Solid positional defense in the paint further validated his positive floor presence.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 28.5m -12.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Svi Mykhailiuk 21.1m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Sharp decline in scoring impact stemmed from an inability to shake loose from top-locking defenders. He forced several unbalanced attempts coming off pin-down screens, short-circuiting the offensive flow. The lack of spacing gravity allowed the opposition to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 21.1m -9.4
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.7

Playmaking volume was overshadowed by reckless drives into heavy traffic that resulted in costly empty possessions. He struggled to read the weak-side help, frequently getting trapped along the baseline. While his point-of-attack defense showed flashes, the offensive decision-making severely hampered the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 26.6m -11.8
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
18
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Capitalized on defensive mismatches by aggressively hunting his spots in the mid-range. He showed excellent balance pulling up off the dribble, punishing defenders who went under screens. The scoring efficiency carried his impact, masking a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 26.1m -11.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Slow-paced facilitation failed to generate meaningful advantages against a switch-heavy defensive scheme. He frequently held the ball too long at the top of the key, allowing the defense to reset and stagnating the half-court flow. A lack of scoring threat rendered him a non-factor down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 19.5m -8.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Perimeter spacing suffered due to rushed mechanics on catch-and-shoot opportunities. He was consistently late on defensive closeouts, allowing clean looks from the corners during critical momentum shifts. The inability to stretch the floor vertically or horizontally limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 15.1m -6.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

A brutal shooting slump completely erased his offensive utility, as he failed to connect on heavily contested looks. He attempted to compensate with high-energy defensive pressure, fighting over screens to bother opposing guards. However, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips kept his net impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 13.1m -5.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 30.2m
6
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Anchored the interior with exceptional rim protection, altering multiple shots during a crucial third-quarter stretch. However, his offensive execution cratered as he struggled to finish through contact in the paint. The massive defensive metrics couldn't entirely offset the empty possessions and missed reads on offense.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/6 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +10.5
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 30.2m -13.5
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 29.4m
25
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.8

Completely controlled the offensive tempo by punishing drop coverage with lethal perimeter execution. His shot selection was impeccable, consistently finding the soft spots in the defense to generate high-value looks. Active hands in passing lanes further amplified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 29.4m -13.0
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Danny Wolf 28.5m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Offensive confidence surged with a noticeable increase in scoring volume, yet his net rating suffered from glaring defensive passivity. He was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll switches, offering zero resistance at the point of attack. Poor closeout angles negated the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 28.5m -12.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Terance Mann 28.3m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Despite an uptick in scoring aggression compared to recent outings, his overall value plummeted due to sloppy ball security in transition. He repeatedly forced passes into tight windows, generating live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's fast break. A few timely weak-side rotations barely softened the blow.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 28.3m -12.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 25.6m
7
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

Playmaking vision flashed in the half-court, but erratic decision-making under pressure ultimately dragged his impact into the red. He struggled to navigate aggressive perimeter hedges, resulting in stalled possessions and late-clock bailouts. Defensive hustle plays kept him afloat, though the offensive rhythm remained disjointed.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 25.6m -11.4
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Cam Thomas 24.0m
21
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.5

An aggressive scoring mentality broke him out of a recent slump, driving significant offensive value through sheer shot creation. He effectively exploited isolation mismatches on the wing, forcing defensive rotations that opened up the floor. While his off-ball defense remains a work in progress, the scoring gravity dictated the opponent's scheme.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.0m -10.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Ben Saraf 20.6m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

A severe regression in offensive rhythm resulted in forced, contested jumpers early in the shot clock. He failed to create separation off the dribble, allowing perimeter defenders to smother his driving lanes. The resulting empty trips neutralized any marginal gains from his on-ball defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 20.6m -9.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 19.5m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Provided exceptional two-way stability by seamlessly connecting the offense and blowing up perimeter screens on the other end. His spatial awareness in the corners stretched the defense, punishing late closeouts with decisive shot-making. He consistently made the right read against trapping schemes, keeping the ball moving efficiently.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 19.5m -8.8
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Dominated the painted area by establishing deep post position and converting high-percentage looks around the basket. His sheer physicality wore down the opposing frontcourt, creating second-chance opportunities through relentless positioning. The interior efficiency anchored the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 17.8m -8.0
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Drake Powell 16.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Hesitancy on the perimeter severely limited his offensive footprint, passing up open catch-and-shoot opportunities. This lack of aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. A quiet night on the hustle charts further highlighted a passive stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 16.0m -7.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0