GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 36.7m
36
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.2

A relentless barrage of high-quality shot creation anchored an elite offensive rating, continuing his recent tear as a primary initiator. He compounded the damage by blowing up pick-and-roll actions on the other end, cementing a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 62.4%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +28.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 36.7m -18.6
Impact +16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 31.4m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.5

An abysmal shooting night from all three levels completely derailed the offense and resulted in a disastrous overall rating. Forcing the issue against set defenses broke the team's rhythm, overshadowing his otherwise passable weak-side rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 31.4m -15.9
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Max Christie 30.4m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Chucking up a high volume of contested threes severely damaged offensive flow and cratered his net score. While he chased shooters adequately on the perimeter, the sheer number of empty possessions he generated proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 30.4m -15.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Caleb Martin 29.1m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Despite converting his looks at an efficient clip, a complete lack of defensive resistance dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, erasing any value his offensive spacing provided.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 29.1m -14.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 24.7m
10
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.2

Suffocating rim protection and elite rotational awareness fueled an incredibly high defensive rating. By sealing off the paint and finishing his lob opportunities cleanly, he dictated the physical terms of the matchup whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +12.4
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 24.7m -12.5
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

A complete lack of off-ball movement and zero hustle plays rendered him an active liability, plummeting his overall rating. Failing to punish closeouts or generate gravity on the perimeter allowed the defense to completely ignore his side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 20.1m -10.2
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 17.6m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A sharp reduction in usage from his recent scoring tear resulted in a relatively muted, slightly negative impact. He struggled to find an offensive rhythm off the bench, though active hands in passing lanes kept the damage minimal.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 17.6m -8.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 14.9m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operating strictly as a vertical spacer provided a minor positive bump during his short stint. He avoided costly mistakes and executed his drop coverage assignments, yielding a perfectly acceptable baseline performance.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 14.9m -7.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Miles Kelly 12.1m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Blanking on his perimeter looks and offering zero resistance at the point of attack culminated in a disastrous net score. He was consistently hunted in mismatch situations, bleeding points during a highly ineffective rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 12.1m -6.2
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

Failing to organize the second unit effectively led to stagnant possessions and a steep drop in his net rating. His inability to turn the corner on pick-and-rolls allowed the defense to comfortably switch and smother the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -42.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 11.8m -5.9
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Setting bone-crushing screens and executing hard rolls to the rim generated a highly efficient positive impact in limited minutes. His energetic closeouts and positional discipline fortified the interior defense exactly when the second unit needed stability.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 11.1m -5.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 38.5m
11
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.0

Clanking a barrage of perimeter looks severely damaged his offensive value and drove his total impact into the red. He fought hard to compensate by generating deflections and navigating screens, yet the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his elite hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +4.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 38.5m -19.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 30.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylen Brown 37.4m
33
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

Relentless rim pressure anchored a massive offensive rating, extending his recent dominant scoring pattern. While his sheer volume drove the bulk of his positive impact, solid defensive rotations kept his overall net score firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 15/29 (51.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 37.4m -19.0
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

A sharp drop in offensive rhythm cratered his net score, as empty possessions piled up on the perimeter. Surprisingly stout defensive rotations partially masked the damage, but his inability to punish closeouts ultimately dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 28.3m -14.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 28.0m
8
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

Interior efficiency and strong rim protection drove a positive defensive rating, continuing his streak of highly effective paint finishes. His low-usage role limited his overall ceiling, but his ability to anchor the drop coverage kept his net impact above water.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 28.0m -14.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 26.1m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Perimeter floor spacing provided a steady baseline, but his overall impact zeroed out due to a lack of disruptive plays on the other end. He settled into a reliable catch-and-shoot pattern that kept the offense flowing without moving the needle defensively.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 26.1m -13.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
26
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.6

Slicing through the defense for high-percentage interior looks generated a massive box score boost, offsetting a cold night from deep. His overall impact remained solidly positive, though a lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack prevented a truly elite rating.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 34.5m -17.5
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luka Garza 20.0m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

Flawless execution from beyond the arc fueled a staggering offensive surge that completely overwhelmed the opposing second unit. This explosive scoring burst was paired with high-motor closeouts, resulting in a dominant two-way performance in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 20.0m -10.2
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Forcing contested perimeter jumpers tanked his offensive value and dragged his overall rating into the negative. He managed to salvage some utility by aggressively crashing the glass, but erratic shot selection remained the defining flaw of his shift.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 16.7m -8.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 10.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Complete offensive invisibility and missed defensive assignments led to a steep negative rating in a brief stint. Failing to register any meaningful weak-side activity made him a pure liability during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 10.5m -5.2
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0