GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.3m
19
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

Exceptional length and anticipation on the defensive end salvaged what was otherwise a clunky isolation scoring night. He bogged down the offense by settling for contested midrange pull-ups against set defenders. However, his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls on the other end kept his overall impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 35.3m -16.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 34.2m
14
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Defensive versatility was the saving grace of an otherwise muted performance. He struggled to find driving lanes in the half-court, resulting in a string of forced attempts in traffic. Elite help-side rotations and constant activity in the passing lanes prevented his offensive struggles from hurting the team.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.6
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 34.2m -16.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 4
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.3

Pushing the pace and hunting early-clock threes completely fractured the opponent's defensive shell. He was a menace at the point of attack, turning ball pressure into live-ball turnovers that sparked fast breaks. This dual-threat performance of perimeter shot-making and disruptive defense drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +5.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 33.3m -15.7
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 28.0m
21
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Downhill aggression forced the defense into constant rotation, drawing fouls and generating high-value looks. He balanced his scoring with timely kick-outs, rarely letting the ball stick in his hands. A disciplined approach to transition defense ensured his offensive production wasn't given right back.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 28.0m -13.1
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Snapping a streak of highly efficient outings, he struggled to finish through contact around the basket. He remained a positive force by generating extra possessions through relentless offensive rebounding and deflections. The grit he showed in the trenches compensated for his uncharacteristic misses in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 24.4m -11.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
20
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.3

Catch-and-shoot precision from the perimeter punished the defense for sagging into the paint. He capitalized on open looks, providing a crucial spacing element that unlocked driving lanes for the guards. Active hands and solid positional awareness on defense rounded out a highly effective two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 30.4m -14.3
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Jamal Shead 19.6m
5
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.4

Relentless ball pressure and diving for loose balls defined a gritty, low-usage stint. While his scoring volume was minimal, he kept the offense organized and rarely wasted a possession. The sheer volume of hustle plays masked a few minor lapses in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 19.6m -9.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Drawing fouls and getting to the charity stripe salvaged an otherwise quiet night from the floor. He avoided forcing bad shots when his perimeter stroke wasn't falling, opting instead to keep the ball moving. Competent team defense ensured he remained a slight positive despite the lack of field goals.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 17.8m -8.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 10.8m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Failing to register a single point, his inability to bend the defense with his shooting gravity stalled the second unit. He was targeted on a few switches, though he competed hard to recover. The complete lack of offensive production ultimately dragged his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 10.8m -5.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A brief, ineffective cameo was marred by rushed perimeter attempts that led to long rebounds. He failed to find the flow of the game during his short stint on the floor. Without his typical floor-spacing threat, his minutes were a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 3.7m -1.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Forced a pair of ill-advised shots early in the shot clock during a very brief rotation appearance. He offered zero resistance or hustle stats to offset the wasted offensive possessions. The quick trigger without rhythm directly hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 2.5m -1.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 38.6m
27
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.3

Elite defensive rim protection and sheer offensive gravity outweighed a highly inefficient shooting night from the perimeter. He anchored the frontcourt with timely rotations that disrupted opponent drives at the rim. The sheer volume of defensive stops completely masked the damage of his constant bricked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.6
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 38.6m -18.3
Impact +16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 32.7m
11
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

A brutal finishing night around the rim cratered his overall offensive value despite stellar defensive positioning. He consistently walled off the paint, but giving away empty possessions with missed bunnies negated that effort. The stark contrast between his elite drop-coverage and offensive clunkiness defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +10.3
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 32.7m -15.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 5
S Isaiah Collier 30.2m
19
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.8

Penetration and elite decision-making fueled a highly productive stint as the primary initiator. He consistently collapsed the defense to create high-value looks, balancing his own efficient scoring with sharp distribution. Point-of-attack ball pressure capped off a well-rounded, high-impact performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.6
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 30.2m -14.3
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 26.5m
4
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.3

Shot selection was a glaring issue as he forced his way to a massive negative impact score. Jacking up contested jumpers early in the shot clock repeatedly derailed the team's offensive rhythm. While he competed on the glass, the sheer volume of wasted possessions made him a heavy liability.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 26.5m -12.5
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Cody Williams 20.4m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Elite shot selection drove a strong positive impact despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring volume. He capitalized on limited touches by refusing to force bad looks against set defenses. Consistent weak-side cuts and hustle plays padded his value in a highly efficient outing.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 20.4m -9.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

Settling for contested perimeter looks dragged down his overall effectiveness and stalled the offense. Despite showing decent effort in defensive rotations, his inability to punish closeouts left the half-court attack stagnant. The lack of interior pressure meant his long misses directly fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 30.0m -14.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Crashing the glass and diving for loose balls couldn't salvage a disastrous offensive showing. He completely lost his scoring rhythm, forcing tough isolation looks that bailed out the defense. The stark drop-off from his usual scoring production left a massive void in the second unit's attack.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 19.1m -9.0
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

A complete lack of secondary hustle stats compounded the damage of a cold shooting night. He failed to impact the game when his perimeter stroke wasn't falling, often floating on the wing instead of cutting. This one-dimensional outing made him an easy cover for the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 17.8m -8.3
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Kevin Love 15.3m
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Heavy legs on his perimeter jumpers resulted in empty trips that slightly outweighed his positional rebounding. He managed to survive defensively by utilizing his veteran IQ to cut off driving angles in the post. However, the inability to stretch the floor effectively neutralized his primary offensive weapon.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 15.3m -7.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Limited touches snapped his streak of high-volume efficiency, but he still found ways to be a net positive. He operated strictly within the flow of the offense, setting solid screens and making quick reads out of the post. Even without his typical scoring punch, his refusal to force bad shots kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 9.4m -4.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1