GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 35.2m
24
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

A high-volume, low-efficiency shot diet actively harmed the overall offensive flow despite the inflated scoring total. He derailed several half-court possessions by forcing contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock. While his physical perimeter defense (+4.1) provided some value, the sheer number of wasted offensive trips drove his net impact firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 35.2m -17.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

Gritty point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays completely salvaged a rough shooting night. He made his mark by diving for loose balls, fighting over screens, and disrupting the opponent's offensive rhythm at the top of the key. That sheer effort level (+6.1 Hustle, +7.4 Def) drove winning basketball even when his perimeter jumpers were clanking off the iron.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +6.1
Defense +7.4
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 33.4m -17.0
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Grayson Allen 32.5m
21
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Relentless off-ball movement and a willingness to launch from deep kept the defense in constant rotation. Even with a streaky shooting percentage, his sheer gravity as a spacer opened up driving lanes for the primary creators. Strong secondary hustle plays (+4.3) and active hands in the passing lanes ensured he remained a net positive despite the missed looks.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 32.5m -16.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Royce O'Neale 27.2m
9
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.7

Defensive lapses and an inability to contain dribble penetration completely erased the value of his perimeter marksmanship. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation during the second half, bleeding points at the point of attack. Those defensive breakdowns, combined with a lack of secondary playmaking, resulted in a highly damaging overall stint (-4.7).

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 27.2m -13.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 22.8m
11
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.8

Exceptional efficiency as a roll man and lob threat put immense vertical pressure on the opposing defense. He dominated the interior by sealing off defenders early and finishing through contact with ease. That high-percentage interior scoring, paired with disciplined drop coverage (+4.7 Def), made him a massive positive force on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 22.8m -11.5
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Operating exclusively as a spot-up threat severely limited his offensive versatility and allowed defenders to close out aggressively. While he generated tremendous value through offensive rebounding and loose-ball recoveries (+6.7 Hustle), the lack of rim pressure stagnated the half-court offense. That one-dimensional shot profile ultimately tipped his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 29.4m -15.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 24.9m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Strong interior positioning and disciplined rim protection (+6.0 Def) were offset by a lack of offensive assertiveness. He passed up several deep post seals, deferring to the perimeter and allowing the defense to reset. While he executed his defensive assignments perfectly, that offensive passivity kept his overall net impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 24.9m -12.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Suffocating perimeter defense defined this highly effective reserve stint. He completely locked down his assignments in isolation, utilizing quick hands and lateral quickness to blow up offensive sets (+6.5 Def). By playing strictly within himself on offense and taking only high-value looks, he maximized his value as a two-way connector.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 19.5m -10.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 12.4m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Opportunistic scoring and sharp defensive rotations highlighted a highly productive short shift. He perfectly executed his role as a weak-side helper (+4.1 Def), rotating down to contest shots at the rim without fouling. Capitalizing on a couple of open catch-and-shoot looks ensured his brief time on the floor was a clear net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 12.4m -6.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

A disastrously quick stint characterized by blown defensive assignments and poor transition awareness. He was immediately targeted upon entering the game, giving up easy penetration that compromised the entire defensive shell. The rapid bleeding of points during his few minutes on the floor resulted in a steep negative impact (-2.1).

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.7m -1.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Gui Santos 35.9m
18
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.4

Relentless energy defined this performance, with exceptional hustle metrics (+9.4) driving a highly positive overall impact. He capitalized on broken plays and transition opportunities to maintain his incredibly efficient shooting streak. That constant off-ball movement and willingness to do the dirty work kept the offensive flow humming.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +9.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 35.9m -18.3
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Pat Spencer 32.4m
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

Catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter completely transformed his offensive profile tonight. His willingness to let it fly from deep punished defensive rotations, creating immense spacing for the primary ball-handlers. Combined with disciplined positional defense (+6.2), this floor-stretching dynamic resulted in a highly positive overall showing.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 32.4m -16.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moses Moody 30.9m
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

A massive drop-off from his recent scoring tear was driven by a completely one-dimensional shot profile, as every attempt came from beyond the arc. While he remained engaged off the ball with strong closeouts and hustle (+5.7), the offensive stagnation with him on the floor tanked his overall impact. His inability to pressure the rim allowed the defense to stay home, resulting in a heavily negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.7
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 30.9m -15.8
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Elite point-of-attack defense (+7.1) completely overshadowed a frigid night from beyond the arc. He generated immense value by blowing up dribble hand-offs and forcing opposing guards out of their rhythm. Even with a high volume of clanked perimeter looks, his defensive disruptions and transition pushes kept his net impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 24.7m -12.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 24.1m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Extreme offensive passivity severely limited his effectiveness, as he settled entirely for perimeter looks rather than operating as a playmaking hub. Despite remaining a solid communicative anchor on the defensive end (+4.6), the lack of rim pressure or scoring gravity dragged his overall impact into the red. Opponents simply ignored him on the perimeter, bogging down the half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 24.1m -12.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 27.9m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Solid positional defense and floor spacing were ultimately undone by struggles containing quicker forwards in space. While he provided steady veteran execution in half-court sets, the defensive rotations were just a half-step slow during critical stretches. This slight mismatch vulnerability neutralized his otherwise solid secondary rim protection, resulting in a nearly flat overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 27.9m -14.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Will Richard 27.3m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite decent underlying box metrics, an inability to consistently knock down open looks severely cramped the offensive spacing. He struggled to stay in front of his primary assignment, offering minimal resistance at the point of attack (+0.8 Def). Those missed assignments and clanked spot-up opportunities ultimately dragged his overall value into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 27.3m -13.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.5

Absolute dominance in a condensed role, fueled by elite cutting and opportunistic spot-up shooting. He completely flipped the game's momentum during his second-half stint by finishing through contact and blowing up passing lanes. The sheer efficiency of his offensive touches maximized his massive overall impact (+11.5) in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 18.8m -9.6
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

A complete lack of offensive rhythm and zero measurable hustle plays rendered this a highly damaging stint. He failed to establish any penetration, settling for contested perimeter looks that led to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. Without his usual connective passing or rebounding energy, his minutes were a massive net negative (-7.9).

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -91.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 12.2m -6.2
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Rushed perimeter attempts and a failure to establish deep position defined a brief, ineffective stint. The game simply moved too fast for him during his rotation, leading to empty offensive possessions and late defensive closeouts. This inability to anchor the paint or stretch the floor resulted in a sharp negative impact during his limited run.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 5.7m -2.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0