GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 36.6m
22
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.8

Dominated the physical matchups inside, using his size to generate high-percentage looks and second-chance opportunities. His impact score took a hit solely due to a cluster of offensive fouls drawn by Minnesota's frontcourt during a sloppy third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 36.6m -21.6
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Brandon Ingram 35.0m
25
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Midrange volume kept the offense afloat, but a high rate of dead-ball turnovers and forced isolations severely capped his overall value. He repeatedly stalled the ball against Minnesota's set defense, allowing the shot clock to drain before settling for highly contested looks.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 35.0m -20.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
23
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.3

Blistering perimeter execution stretched the defense to its breaking point, opening up driving lanes for his teammates. The massive gap between his pristine box score and moderate total impact reflects a handful of ill-advised live-ball turnovers when trying to split the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 33.6m -19.7
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 28.4m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

A brutal night of forcing drives into heavy traffic resulted in blocked shots and transition run-outs for the Timberwolves. Though he competed hard on the defensive end, the sheer number of empty offensive possessions cratered his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 28.4m -16.6
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Thrived in the dunker spot by converting dump-off passes and maintaining relentless activity on the offensive glass. His disciplined verticality at the rim deterred several drives without sending opponents to the free-throw line.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 25.3m -14.8
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Showed excellent touch around the basket but gave the value right back by biting on pump fakes and committing cheap fouls. His inability to secure long rebounds during a crucial fourth-quarter stretch allowed Minnesota to generate back-breaking extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 31.6m -18.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jamal Shead 22.2m
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.8

Pacing issues plagued his minutes, as he frequently picked up his dribble too early and threw dangerous cross-court passes. The defensive intensity was present, but the offensive execution was too erratic to sustain any positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 22.2m -13.1
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Looked hesitant to let it fly against closeouts, which bogged down the offensive flow during his rotation. A couple of missed defensive assignments on back-door cuts further tanked his overall contribution.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 14.2m -8.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 13.0m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Capitalized on limited touches by relocating perfectly along the baseline for easy finishes. Kept his mistakes to a minimum, playing a clean, low-usage role that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 13.0m -7.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 39.7m
19
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.6

Offensive production was completely undermined by a disastrous floor game plagued by costly live-ball turnovers. The negative impact stems entirely from giving possessions away against Toronto's aggressive wings and compounding those errors with poor transition fouls.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 39.7m -23.2
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 37.8m
30
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.5

Relentless point-of-attack defense defined this outing, completely suffocating opposing guards on the perimeter. While his outside jumper was flat, his sheer volume of high-quality rim pressure and elite hustle plays kept his net impact exceptionally high.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +12.9
Raw total +33.7
Avg player in 37.8m -22.2
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Julius Randle 35.6m
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.5

Shot selection completely derailed his overall value, as forced isolation jumpers led to long rebounds and transition runs for the opponent. His inability to string together stops in the pick-and-roll dragged his defensive rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 35.6m -20.9
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 32.9m
10
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Anchored the paint effectively with timely weakside rotations, generating a massive defensive boost against downhill drives. However, his overall impact was severely muted by offensive fouls on moving screens and a tendency to clog driving lanes during key second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 32.9m -19.4
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.2

Elite perimeter spacing was entirely negated by a string of careless passing errors in the half-court that fueled opponent fast breaks. He was repeatedly targeted on defense during switch situations, bleeding points that erased the value of his hot shooting.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 31.0m -18.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 28.6m
17
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.8

Provided a massive spark off the bench by consistently beating his man down the floor for early post seals. His positive impact was slightly dampened by over-aggressive closeouts that resulted in costly shooting fouls on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 28.6m -16.8
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 26.0m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.6

Controlled the tempo masterfully during the non-Gobert minutes, combining decisive downhill drives with active hands in the passing lanes. His shot selection was pristine, totally avoiding the forced pull-ups that usually drag down his efficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 26.0m -15.3
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Struggled to find a rhythm during a brief stint, rushing a couple of contested looks at the rim that killed offensive momentum. Managed to salvage some value through tenacious on-ball pressure against the opposing bench unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 6.0m -3.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Barely saw the floor but managed to disrupt one passing lane in garbage time. A quick forced jumper out of rhythm accounted for the slight negative dip in his micro-stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +70.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 2.3m -1.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Subbed in for a fleeting situational possession at the end of a quarter. Did not register enough floor time to accumulate any measurable impact on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0m -0.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0