GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 35.9m
20
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+2.9

Taking a backseat in scoring volume compared to his recent tear, his hyper-efficient shot selection still drove a stellar +16.5 box score impact. He managed the game beautifully, using his perimeter gravity to warp the defense while competing hard on the other end to disrupt passing lanes (+3.7 Def).

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +33.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 35.9m -19.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Peyton Watson 35.3m
21
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

An aggressive scoring surge fueled a strong box score, though transition lapses and defensive gambles bled back most of those gains. Elite hustle (+4.7) in generating second-chance opportunities and tracking down loose balls ultimately kept his head just above water.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 35.3m -19.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Spencer Jones 35.1m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Outstanding defensive metrics (+5.3) and high-energy closeouts were completely undone by his offensive invisibility across heavy minutes. His reluctance to shoot and inability to punish closeouts allowed his primary defender to roam freely, severely sabotaging the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 35.1m -19.3
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Nikola Jokić 24.5m
31
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+25.4

Absolute dominance in limited minutes yielded an astronomical +28.2 box impact, as he completely dismantled the opponent's frontcourt with surgical passing and hyper-efficient finishing. What truly elevated this masterclass was his exceptional defensive positioning (+8.2), blowing up pick-and-rolls before they could even develop.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 13/17 (76.5%)
Advanced
TS% 83.9%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +28.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.2
Raw total +38.8
Avg player in 24.5m -13.4
Impact +25.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Pickett 14.2m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

Continuing a brutal scoreless streak, he bricked all of his perimeter attempts and consistently killed offensive momentum. While he battled admirably at the point of attack (+2.0 Def), his complete lack of shooting gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 14.2m -7.8
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 26.3m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.4

A bizarrely passive offensive performance snapped his streak of efficient outings, severely limiting his overall impact. Failing to generate his usual transition chaos or downhill pressure, his reluctance to attack the rim resulted in a stagnant half-court offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 26.3m -14.4
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.2

Catching fire from beyond the arc, he routinely punished late closeouts to double his usual scoring output and generate a massive +20.1 box impact. This pure floor-spacing value completely opened up the interior for his teammates, easily masking a relatively quiet night in the hustle and defensive departments.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 24.6m -13.5
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Struggling to convert efficiently in the painted area, he allowed the opposing frontcourt to easily survive his post touches. Despite providing solid interior resistance (+3.1 Def), his inability to dominate his individual matchup down low resulted in empty possessions that dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 21.5m -11.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

Bouncing back from a horrific shooting slump, he shifted his focus entirely toward defensive execution (+4.0) and high-energy loose ball recoveries (+2.4). By refusing to force bad shots and letting the game come to him, he made a positive mark through disciplined off-ball rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 16.6m -9.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely seeing the floor in a late-game situation, he registered almost no measurable impact on either end. He simply filled space on the wing without altering the geometry of the defense or generating any hustle events.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 2.0m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Converting his only look at the rim during garbage time wasn't enough to offset his lack of rebounding presence. This was a purely cosmetic appearance that slightly bled value due to overall defensive passivity in the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 2.0m -1.2
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Getting on the board after a brief scoreless stretch, he showed good hands to finish his lone offensive touch. While he surrendered a bit of ground on the defensive interior (-0.5), he ultimately won his brief minutes through that single execution.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 2.0m -1.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 33.9m
25
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-volume isolation creation generated a strong box score metric, but underlying inefficiencies kept his net impact barely above water. While he successfully hunted mismatches on the perimeter, defensive lapses and empty possessions in traffic prevented a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 33.9m -18.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S John Collins 31.2m
18
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Elite floor spacing from the frontcourt drove a massive +19.4 box impact, as he consistently punished drop coverages on the pick-and-pop. Extending his streak of highly efficient shooting nights, his perimeter gravity completely opened up the driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 31.2m -17.1
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 31.1m
21
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.4

A strong defensive presence (+4.7) kept his overall impact in the green despite a noticeable dip in shooting efficiency compared to his recent hot streak. Settling for heavily contested midrange jumpers rather than attacking the paint ultimately limited his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.0%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.7
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 31.1m -17.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ivica Zubac 29.7m
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Finishing effectively around the rim wasn't enough to offset his struggles in pick-and-roll coverage. Opposing guards routinely turned the corner against his drop scheme, resulting in a muted defensive impact (+1.4) that dragged his total score into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 29.7m -16.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 25.5m
5
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.7

Brutal perimeter execution cratered his value, exacerbating a prolonged offensive slump that allowed opponents to aggressively pack the paint. Failing to generate his usual point-of-attack disruption (-0.5 Def) meant he couldn't offset the damage caused by his missed open looks.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 25.5m -14.0
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 22.5m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Cooling off from a recent hyper-efficient stretch, he forced several contested looks early in the shot clock that stalled the offense. Without secondary playmaking or disruptive defensive rotations to fall back on, his value plummeted the moment his shots stopped falling at an elite rate.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 22.5m -12.5
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Excellent veteran connectivity and crisp defensive rotations (+3.2 Def) defined his stint, though he bricked too many wide-open spot-up looks to stay out of the red. His relentless hustle in tracking down long rebounds partially mitigated the cost of his ongoing shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 21.8m -12.0
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Blending into the background during his minutes, he failed to force the issue or bend the defense on his touches. While his off-ball defensive positioning was sound (+2.1 Def), a distinct lack of aggression in attacking closeouts left his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 18.7m -10.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Brook Lopez 16.3m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Completely phased out of the offensive game plan with zero shot attempts, his value was entirely salvaged by elite rim protection (+5.1 Def). Massive hustle metrics highlight how effectively he deterred drives and altered shots in the paint, acting purely as a defensive anchor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 16.3m -9.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Making the most of a brief cameo, he managed to break a brutal recent shooting slump by executing his lone offensive touch. His positive impact was strictly limited to that single conversion, registering zero defensive or hustle metrics during the short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 3.6m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

A complete non-factor in extremely limited action, this brief appearance snapped a streak of highly productive offensive outings. He simply wasn't on the floor long enough to generate any meaningful defensive or hustle data, resulting in a perfectly neutral rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Missing his only look during a fleeting appearance dragged his box score metric down slightly. He flashed a tiny bit of positional awareness on defense (+0.6) but otherwise just collected cardio at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0