GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 38.8m
32
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Torched defensive coverages by exploiting mismatches in the mid-post and converting at a high clip from deep. While his scoring explosion carried the offense for long stretches, a lack of secondary playmaking and average point-of-attack defense muted his overall statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 38.8m -25.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cooper Flagg 38.5m
32
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.0

Carried a massive offensive burden with relentless rim pressure, consistently beating primary defenders off the dribble to create advantages. His elite weak-side rim protection further amplified his value, proving he can anchor a unit on both ends despite the heavy usage.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 38.5m -25.2
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
S Max Christie 37.7m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

An aggressive scoring mentality yielded a surprising offensive outburst, though a barrage of clanked perimeter looks kept his net impact hovering near zero. Exceptional hustle in transition defense prevented his erratic shot selection from becoming a true liability.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 37.7m -24.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Daniel Gafford 33.0m
16
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

Completely sealed off the paint with masterful drop coverage and explosive shot-blocking. By strictly adhering to a diet of lobs and put-backs, he maximized his offensive efficiency while serving as an impenetrable anchor on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +11.4
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 33.0m -21.6
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 0
S Caleb Martin 31.6m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Devastating live-ball turnovers and poor rotational discipline completely erased the benefits of his highly efficient shot profile. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation during a disastrous third-quarter stretch, hemorrhaging points that cratered his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 31.6m -20.9
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Forced contested looks early in the shot clock, short-circuiting offensive possessions and fueling opponent transition opportunities. His inability to create separation against younger wings resulted in a dreadful shooting display that severely dragged down the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 20.4m -13.5
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.4

Struggled mightily to finish through contact, wasting multiple drives with wild attempts in the paint. Although he orchestrated the offense well enough to rack up assists, his sheer inefficiency as a scorer allowed defenders to duck under screens and blow up plays.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 17.2m -11.3
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 11.7m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Offensive limitations were glaringly exposed as he clogged the paint and failed to convert point-blank opportunities. Even with adequate rim protection during his brief stint, his inability to function as a viable roll man derailed the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 11.7m -7.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Maximized a brief rotational window by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down an in-rhythm jumper. His disciplined shot selection and mistake-free execution provided a clean, positive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.4
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 8.9m -5.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Logged just over two minutes of action before being quickly subbed out. A quick defensive miscommunication during that fleeting appearance resulted in a minor negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -173.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.2m -1.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
29
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.9

Utterly dominated the interior while simultaneously stretching the floor with elite, disciplined shot selection. His massive defensive footprint deterred drives all night, anchoring a highly efficient two-way performance that dictated the game's entire tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +24.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.5
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 34.5m -22.6
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
S Harrison Barnes 34.4m
19
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Searing accuracy from the corners masked a glaring lack of physical engagement on the glass. Despite catching fire to easily eclipse his recent scoring averages, his failure to secure defensive rebounds allowed crucial second-chance opportunities that neutralized his offensive surge.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +6.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 34.4m -22.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S De'Aaron Fox 31.9m
17
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.3

Defensive lapses at the point of attack proved costly, allowing opposing guards to consistently break the paint and collapse the scheme. While he found some rhythm navigating high ball screens, the defensive bleeding and forced mid-range attempts ultimately tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.3
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 31.9m -21.1
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 30.1m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

A complete power outage from beyond the arc undermined an otherwise steady defensive shift. By forcing flat-footed jumpers late in the shot clock, he squandered offensive possessions and dragged his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 30.1m -19.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Inefficient perimeter shooting severely capped his overall effectiveness, as he settled for contested looks from deep rather than attacking closeouts. The defensive metrics remained solid, but his inability to convert quality spacing opportunities resulted in a net-negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 27.3m -18.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.4

Smothering on-ball pressure set the tone during a crucial second-half stretch, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. He capitalized on those defensive stops by slashing efficiently in transition, cementing a stellar two-way outing.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.7
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 21.7m -14.2
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Dylan Harper 19.2m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Active hands in passing lanes and relentless loose-ball pursuits kept his impact in the green despite a noticeable dip in scoring volume. He maintained his impressive streak of efficient shot selection by refusing to force contested looks when the primary action broke down.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 19.2m -12.7
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.8

Relentless downhill attacking created high-percentage looks at the rim and forced the opposing defense into heavy rotations. This disciplined, paint-focused shot profile combined with sturdy weak-side help to generate a highly efficient burst off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 19.1m -12.6
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Offensive passivity severely limited his usefulness, as he frequently passed up open looks to reset the offense rather than threatening the defense. Even with commendable effort on loose balls, his reluctance to attack the rim allowed defenders to aggressively help off him.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 17.9m -11.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence during a quick rotational stint in the backcourt. A well-timed perimeter strike ensured his short time on the floor yielded a marginal positive return.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 3.9m -2.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0