GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 37.4m
35
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.6

A massive bounce-back performance saw him torch drop coverages from the perimeter, fueling an elite +29.1 box score metric. He aggressively hunted his shot in isolation, punishing defenders who gave him an inch of breathing room. This explosive scoring surge single-handedly carried the half-court offense during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +29.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 37.4m -20.9
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Julius Randle 36.9m
24
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.6

Relentless physical drives into the teeth of the defense powered a massive +24.0 box score impact. Even though his perimeter stroke abandoned him entirely, he compensated by generating high-quality looks in the paint and creating for others. A superb +4.7 hustle rating showcased his commitment to securing long rebounds and loose balls.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 36.9m -20.7
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Rudy Gobert 33.0m
12
pts
16
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.0

Absolute domination of the painted area anchored a spectacular +16.0 overall impact. He completely erased opponent driving lanes with a towering +12.2 defensive rating, forcing countless kick-outs and late-clock desperation heaves. His elite +7.0 hustle score reflects a masterclass in screening and keeping offensive possessions alive.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense +12.2
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 33.0m -18.5
Impact +16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.4

A severe lack of shot-making efficiency completely derailed his overall impact, plunging him to a -13.4 net rating. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, short-circuiting the offensive flow. While his point-of-attack defense remained solid (+2.4), the empty offensive trips gave the opposition too many transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 25.8m -14.5
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 21.9m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.3

An uncharacteristically porous defensive showing (-2.1) compounded a frigid shooting night, dragging his net impact down to a dismal -14.3. He consistently bit on pump fakes and lost his man back-door, compromising the team's entire coverage scheme. The inability to knock down perimeter looks only magnified the damage during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -2.1
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 21.9m -12.3
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bones Hyland 30.4m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

Microwave shot creation against second units sparked a tremendous +10.6 overall rating. He broke down defenders off the dribble with ease, generating high-quality perimeter looks that stretched the floor. Surprisingly, an elite +6.1 hustle rating showed he was just as engaged tracking down loose balls as he was hunting his own shot.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +6.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 30.4m -17.2
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 25.2m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Exceptional weak-side rim protection (+7.0 defensive rating) was overshadowed by a frustratingly cold shooting night. He struggled to find his rhythm from beyond the arc, allowing his defender to sag into the paint and disrupt cutting lanes. This offensive stagnation ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative (-4.7) despite his defensive heroics.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 25.2m -14.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Jaylen Clark 14.1m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Complete offensive invisibility severely limited his effectiveness, resulting in a -3.9 net impact. Opposing defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter, using his man as a free safety to clog the paint. While he battled on the glass, the 4-on-5 dynamic in the half-court proved too costly during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 14.1m -8.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Struggled to leave a footprint during his limited floor time, resulting in a slightly negative -2.2 overall impact. He hit one perimeter look but otherwise floated on the wing without pressuring the defense. A lack of secondary playmaking or off-ball cutting made his minutes largely forgettable.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 10.1m -5.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A brief rotational stint yielded minimal influence on the game's trajectory, reflected in a mild -1.8 net rating. He executed his assignments adequately but failed to generate any disruptive events on the defensive end. The short leash prevented him from establishing any sort of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 5.2m -3.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 37.3m
26
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.5

Lethal spot-up shooting stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point, resulting in a robust +18.9 box impact. He consistently punished late closeouts, acting as the ultimate release valve for the primary creators. Despite the offensive fireworks, his overall net rating (+1.5) was muted slightly by playing through several opponent transition runs.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 37.3m -21.0
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Saddiq Bey 34.3m
30
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.8

A massive +10.8 overall impact was fueled by an aggressive offensive workload that shattered his recent scoring averages. His defensive metrics (+6.2) suggest he wasn't just a volume shooter, actively disrupting sets on the other end to anchor the wing rotation. The sheer volume of high-leverage possessions he converted kept the offense humming all night.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +22.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 34.3m -19.3
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 32.6m
17
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.8

Flawless perimeter execution completely transformed his offensive profile, stretching the floor in ways that punished drop coverages. This unexpected floor-spacing dynamic generated a strong +15.1 box score impact. Combined with sturdy rotational defense (+3.5), he provided crucial two-way stability during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 32.6m -18.3
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 31.9m
29
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Unstoppable interior finishing drove a stellar +8.6 overall rating, as he generated relentless rim pressure that the defense simply could not contain. His shot selection was nearly flawless, punishing mismatches in the paint rather than settling for jumpers. A strong +3.9 hustle score further highlights his physical dominance on 50/50 balls.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 85.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 31.9m -18.1
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Herbert Jones 22.6m
2
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.7

Elite point-of-attack defense (+6.5) and relentless hustle plays couldn't salvage a disastrous -8.7 overall impact. His complete lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. The resulting spacing issues severely bogged down the half-court offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -5.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.5
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 22.6m -12.7
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-19.7

A brutal regression in shot quality and finishing completely cratered his net impact to a team-worst -19.7. He forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum and fueling transition opportunities the other way. While he remained active on loose balls (+3.5 hustle), the offensive stagnation was too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense -8.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total -4.0
Avg player in 28.0m -15.7
Impact -19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
11
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Highly efficient shot selection yielded a strong +10.3 box impact, as he capitalized on defensive rotations to find easy looks. He played within the flow of the offense and contributed solid secondary playmaking. However, his overall rating slipped into the red (-1.2) due to sharing the floor during a costly stretch of opponent transition scoring.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 27.8m -15.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Yves Missi 15.4m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Defensive intimidation was the primary driver of his +4.9 net rating, as he consistently altered shots around the rim (+6.0 defensive impact). He embraced a low-usage role on offense, setting hard screens and staying out of the way. This specialized rim-protection shift provided immense value in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 15.4m -8.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Completely ghosted on the offensive end during a brief stint, failing to register a single field goal attempt. His inability to command defensive attention allowed the opposition to overload the strong side. The resulting lack of gravity dragged his overall impact into the negatives despite adequate hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -64.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 7.4m -4.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A fleeting appearance was marred by a forced, empty possession that immediately put the defense in transition. He failed to establish any rhythm or defensive presence during his brief time on the floor. This lack of engagement quickly resulted in a -4.2 overall rating before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 2.7m -1.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1