GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Perimeter defensive assignments frequently blew past him, forcing the defense into scramble mode and bleeding points. Even though he found some success spacing the floor offensively, his inability to contain dribble penetration resulted in a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 31.0m -14.3
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 29.9m
14
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+0.7

Constant rim pressure collapsed the defense and opened up passing lanes, though a handful of sloppy live-ball turnovers mitigated his playmaking value. Despite the ball-security issues, his relentless point-of-attack defense kept his overall impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 29.9m -13.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Harrison Barnes 28.7m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Faded into the background offensively, passing up several open looks that stalled the team's half-court rhythm. While his veteran positioning yielded decent defensive metrics, his overall passivity allowed the opposition to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 28.7m -13.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+20.6

Completely terrorized the paint, registering an astronomical defensive impact by altering virtually every shot attempted in his vicinity. His sheer length and mobility dictated the terms of engagement on both ends, resulting in a dominant, game-altering performance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 11/15 (73.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +14.4
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 27.9m -12.8
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 4
BLK 5
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 27.5m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Leaned heavily on tough, contested mid-range pull-ups, which fell at a decent rate but failed to generate secondary offense for teammates. His lack of off-ball engagement and minimal hustle allowed his matchup to leak out for easy transition points, dragging his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 27.5m -12.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Dylan Harper 27.6m
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.0

Showcased excellent defensive instincts by fighting over screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs. Unfortunately, a tendency to over-dribble into traffic late in the shot clock resulted in empty possessions that marginally outweighed his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 27.6m -12.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Relentless energy on the offensive glass created vital second-chance opportunities and wore down the opposing frontcourt. This high-motor approach paired with physical drives to the rim cemented a highly productive, tone-setting performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 25.2m -11.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Luke Kornet 17.9m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Anchored the second unit with superb drop-coverage execution, forcing opposing guards into low-percentage floaters. He barely looked at the rim offensively, but his reliable screen-setting and vertical spacing kept the offensive flow steady enough to post a positive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 17.9m -8.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Settled for contested, early-clock jumpers instead of moving the ball, short-circuiting the offensive flow. A distinct lack of rotational awareness on defense compounded these poor shot choices, leading to a noticeable negative swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -51.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 15.5m -7.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Brought in briefly to stabilize the backcourt but failed to initiate any meaningful offensive sets. A quick defensive breakdown during his short stint was enough to dip his net impact just below zero.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.2m -1.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Committed a quick, unnecessary foul that immediately put the opposition in the bonus during his brief run. This lack of discipline in garbage time dragged his minimal sample size straight into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 2.2m -1.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Struggled immediately with the speed of the game upon entering, getting caught out of position on a key defensive rotation. That single lapse in a tiny minute allotment heavily skewed his overall rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 2.2m -1.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Executed a hard baseline cut to secure an easy basket during his limited floor time. Taking advantage of a sleeping defense allowed him to post a quick, clean positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.2m -1.0
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
ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 37.2m
25
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite shot creation carried the offensive load, consistently punishing drop coverage with decisive pull-ups. His overall impact remained solidly positive despite some defensive lapses that slightly dragged down his massive offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 37.2m -17.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 35.1m
19
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Physicality in the paint forced the defense to collapse, creating high-value gravity on offense. However, his net impact barely broke even due to a string of costly live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -41.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 35.1m -16.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Suggs 32.5m
5
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-15.1

Reckless shot selection completely derailed his night, as he repeatedly forced heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. Even a stellar effort navigating screens defensively couldn't salvage a disastrous offensive showing that actively hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 19.2%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense -7.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 32.5m -14.9
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Anthony Black 29.8m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Defensive tenacity at the point of attack yielded solid disruption metrics, but erratic decision-making on the other end erased that value. Settling for contested floaters rather than moving the ball stalled the half-court offense and drove his net score deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 29.8m -13.8
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

A severe regression in finishing around the basket cratered his offensive value, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. While he provided solid rim protection, the sheer volume of empty possessions on forced hook shots resulted in a steep negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -55.8
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 19.4m -8.8
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Struggled to find a rhythm as a floor spacer, clanking several wide-open corner looks that usually stabilize the offense. He maintained excellent positional discipline on defense, but the inability to punish closeouts ultimately dragged his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 27.9m -12.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.5

Completely suffocated opposing wings during a crucial second-quarter stretch, generating immense value through sheer defensive disruption. Paired with highly selective, efficient finishing around the basket, he maximized his limited minutes to post a dominant net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 14.8m -6.8
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 13.3m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Snapped out of a prolonged slump by aggressively cutting baseline when the defense over-helped. This decisive off-ball movement, combined with active hands in passing lanes, translated into a highly effective two-way spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +73.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 13.3m -6.0
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 9.5m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Operated entirely as a passive conduit in the half-court, refusing to look at the rim and allowing the defense to play five-on-four. His extreme reluctance to initiate any offensive pressure resulted in a negative net rating despite avoiding glaring mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 9.5m -4.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Provided sturdy interior resistance during his brief rotation, sealing off driving lanes effectively. By sticking strictly to high-percentage putbacks and avoiding foul trouble, he delivered a clean, positive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +52.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 8.6m -4.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Capitalized on a brief first-half stint by exploiting mismatches in the pick-and-pop game. This sudden injection of offensive efficiency provided a quick positive jolt without requiring him to overextend on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 7.8m -3.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Made the most of a fleeting appearance by immediately hunting a quality look in transition. His brief stint was flawlessly executed, yielding a quick positive bump without any defensive slip-ups.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +150.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 2.2m -1.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Stepped into a catch-and-shoot opportunity with zero hesitation during his short run. Simply executing his primary role as a floor spacer was enough to secure a positive net score for the night.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +150.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 2.2m -1.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0