GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Chet Holmgren 34.7m
17
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Elite rim deterrence was the defining factor, as he altered numerous drives to the basket without fouling. He overcame a quiet playmaking night by dominating the defensive glass and erasing perimeter mistakes made by his guards.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.9
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 34.7m -17.6
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 34.3m
23
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Exceptional point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow at the point of the screen. He paired that perimeter lockdown ability with highly opportunistic, perfectly timed baseline cuts to maximize his value.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +9.3
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 34.3m -17.3
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 26.8m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.9

Impact cratered due to a barrage of ill-advised, early-clock perimeter heaves that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His normally elite point-of-attack defense was uncharacteristically porous against dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 26.8m -13.6
Impact -16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Wiggins 26.4m
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Forced too many contested looks early in the shot clock, dragging down the team's offensive rhythm. Defensive lapses on the perimeter further compounded the negative impact during a rough second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 26.4m -13.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
-2.6

High-post facilitation was completely offset by costly defensive fouls that put the opponent in the bonus early. Defenders sagged off him aggressively, clogging driving lanes for his teammates and stalling the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 25.1m -12.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Isaiah Joe 29.1m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.5

Relentless off-ball movement and elite hustle plays generated massive value beyond his shooting gravity. He constantly scrambled for loose balls and extended possessions, completely breaking the opponent's defensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 29.1m -14.7
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Alex Caruso 26.4m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Excellent screen navigation generated positive defensive value, but his offensive stint was marred by hesitant decision-making. Passing up open catch-and-shoot looks allowed the defense to pack the paint, ultimately pushing his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 26.4m -13.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Provided a highly effective spark off the bench by drawing charges and executing crisp defensive rotations. He maximized his short stint with smart positional awareness and timely floor-spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 15.0m -7.6
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 13.9m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Struggled mightily to navigate screens on defense, consistently giving up straight-line driving lanes. Poor shot selection on the other end prevented him from making up the defensive deficit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 13.9m -7.0
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Bled points rapidly during a disastrous short shift defined by blown weak-side rotations. The coaching staff quickly pulled him after he surrendered consecutive uncontested layups.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 8.2m -4.3
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
HOU Houston Rockets
22
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Anchored the frontcourt with exceptional weak-side rim deterrence, driving his positive impact despite a somewhat inefficient offensive night. This defensive masterclass easily compensated for a handful of rushed perimeter attempts.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.2m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 43.2m -21.9
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 40.4m
20
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.3

Severe ball-security issues completely erased the value of his highly efficient scoring profile. A pattern of telegraphing passes out of double-teams led directly to opponent fast-break points, dragging his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 40.4m -20.5
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Alperen Sengun 36.8m
17
pts
12
reb
11
ast
Impact
+24.1

Absolute mastery as a defensive anchor and offensive hub drove a massive positive swing. His elite positioning disrupted countless pick-and-roll sets, while relentless hustle on loose balls completely suffocated the opponent.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +6.1
Defense +17.7
Raw total +42.8
Avg player in 36.8m -18.7
Impact +24.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 1
S Tari Eason 34.4m
26
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

A heavy diet of forced, late-clock jumpers severely capped his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to reset. However, his relentless weak-side rim rotations and sheer volume of shot attempts salvaged a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 34.4m -17.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Reed Sheppard 31.8m
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.5

Smart, connective passing kept the offense humming without forcing low-quality looks. His impact remained relatively flat due to getting targeted on switches by larger wings, limiting his defensive effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 31.8m -16.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
JD Davison 17.9m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Tremendous energy on loose balls generated crucial extra possessions and boosted his hustle metrics. Unfortunately, erratic decision-making in the open floor resulted in momentum-killing turnovers that zeroed out his positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 17.9m -9.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Complete inability to space the floor allowed his defender to roam freely and disrupt offensive sets. He failed to make an impact on the defensive glass or alter shots, compounding a highly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 16.1m -8.1
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 11.8m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Offensive spacing suffered immensely with him on the floor, as opponents completely ignored his perimeter gravity to pack the paint. Hustle plays couldn't salvage a stint where he was an active liability in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 11.8m -5.9
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

A brief, ineffective stint defined by missed rotations and an inability to secure the paint. He was quickly played off the floor due to glaring pick-and-roll matchup issues that bled points.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -89.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 7.6m -3.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1