GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 31.9m
40
pts
12
reb
12
ast
Impact
+24.6

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency and defensive lockdown drove an astronomical impact score. He relentlessly attacked the rim, finishing through contact while simultaneously orchestrating the offense flawlessly. Suffocating on-ball pressure against the opposing primary creator cemented this as a career-defining two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 15/19 (78.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.5%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +31.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.4
Raw total +45.2
Avg player in 31.9m -20.6
Impact +24.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 6
S Devin Vassell 29.8m
17
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.1

A high volume of missed perimeter shots offset his otherwise solid playmaking and hustle contributions. He repeatedly forced contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock, stalling offensive momentum. The inability to convert efficiently as a primary option ultimately dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +44.9
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 29.8m -19.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite rim deterrence and defensive rebounding salvaged a highly inefficient shooting night. Settling for heavily contested threes rather than dominating the paint suppressed his offensive ceiling. His sheer length altering opponent drives proved to be the defining factor that kept his impact positive.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 26.7m -17.3
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 26.2m
15
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.8

Defensive lapses and poor transition awareness severely punished his net rating despite decent shooting efficiency. He consistently lost his man off the ball, leading to easy back-door cuts and open looks. Failing to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack defined a highly damaging performance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.4
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 26.2m -17.0
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Perfect shooting efficiency on limited touches kept his head just above water in the impact metrics. He played within the flow of the offense, taking only what the defense gave him. Capitalizing on back-door cuts when his defender fell asleep defined a quiet but effective cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 15.1m -9.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 22.9m
11
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.1

Smart shot selection and steady defensive positioning resulted in a quietly positive outing. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely cuts, maintaining his streak of high-percentage finishing. Disciplined closeouts on the perimeter ensured he was a net positive during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 22.9m -15.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Despite knocking down open threes, his poor defensive rotations and inability to secure loose balls tanked his overall value. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, bleeding points on the defensive end. A failure to box out on key possessions ultimately negated his efficient perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 22.1m -14.3
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

High-energy hustle plays and disruptive defense fueled a surprisingly positive impact despite poor overall shooting. He generated crucial extra possessions by crashing the offensive glass with relentless effort. Hitting timely spot-up threes during a crucial second-half stretch validated his extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 17.1m -11.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Luke Kornet 16.3m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.6

Flawless execution in the pick-and-roll and solid positional defense drove a highly efficient stint. He set bone-crushing screens that freed up shooters and rolled hard to the rim for easy finishes. Altering shots in the paint without fouling defined his valuable contribution to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 16.3m -10.6
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

A complete lack of offensive rhythm and defensive awareness resulted in a catastrophic net rating. He was frequently caught out of position on defense, allowing straight-line drives to the basket. Getting blown by on closeouts repeatedly defined a disastrous defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 16.1m -10.3
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

A brief, highly ineffective stint was characterized by defensive immobility and zero offensive production. He was easily exploited in the pick-and-roll, giving up open driving lanes. Failing to register any meaningful hustle stats highlighted a completely empty performance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 5.0m -3.3
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Minimal playing time yielded a negative impact due to an inability to initiate the offense effectively. He struggled to break down the defense, resulting in stagnant possessions. Getting trapped in the backcourt and failing to advance the ball cleanly defined his brief struggles.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -85.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 3.8m -2.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A completely invisible offensive showing in limited minutes dragged his rating slightly below neutral. While he provided adequate defensive switching, his refusal to look for his own shot allowed the defense to ignore him. He failed to make any tangible impact on the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -85.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 3.8m -2.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Entering for a brief defensive assignment, his lack of mobility resulted in a negative net rating. He was unable to rotate quickly enough to protect the rim, giving up easy looks inside. Getting sealed deep in the paint on consecutive possessions defined his ineffective cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -114.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 3.4m -2.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Max Christie 27.0m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Aggressive perimeter shooting fueled a massive offensive surge that kept his overall impact positive. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities, stretching the floor effectively during key second-half runs. Punishing late closeouts from the corners defined his breakout offensive performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 27.0m -17.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 81.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cooper Flagg 26.4m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

A sharp drop-off in scoring efficiency and poor shot selection dragged his overall impact into the red. Clanking multiple contested jumpers stunted the offense, overriding a decent defensive showing. His inability to find a rhythm against physical perimeter coverage defined a frustrating night.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 26.4m -17.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 25.3m
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.0

Exceptional defensive metrics were completely erased by a disastrous shooting performance. Clanking a barrage of forced floaters derailed multiple offensive sets and negated his high-level hustle. His insistence on attacking set defenses in the half-court ultimately torpedoed his net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 25.3m -16.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Caleb Martin 24.0m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Despite generating excellent hustle metrics, his overall value dipped due to empty possessions and average perimeter defense. Taking contested jumpers rather than attacking the rim limited his offensive ceiling. The defining flaw was a failure to convert defensive stops into transition momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 24.0m -15.5
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Daniel Gafford 18.4m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

A lack of defensive presence neutralized his otherwise efficient interior finishing. He struggled to anchor the paint, allowing opponents to score freely at the rim when he was the primary help defender. Getting repeatedly sealed off on weak-side rebounds defined a lackluster stint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 18.4m -11.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

Dominant defensive rebounding and rim deterrence drove a massively positive overall rating. Even with a slightly inefficient shooting night, his ability to secure extra possessions through sheer physical positioning anchored the frontcourt. Controlling the glass against smaller matchups proved to be the decisive factor in his stellar impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +10.2
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 24.4m -15.8
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.4

High-efficiency shot creation and smart decision-making propelled a highly effective stint on the floor. Slashing to the rim with purpose allowed him to break down the defense without forcing bad looks. Consistently collapsing the defense on high pick-and-rolls defined his surgical offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 23.6m -15.3
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Wasted offensive possessions and poor shot selection dragged his net value into negative territory. He settled for heavily contested perimeter looks rather than exploiting mismatches in the post. A glaring lack of weak-side defensive rotations compounded the damage during opponent scoring runs.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 22.6m -14.6
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

A heavy diet of three-point attempts yielded enough gravity to positively influence the offensive spacing. Strong positional defense and timely closeouts further boosted his value, compensating for some streaky shooting stretches. Hitting timely catch-and-shoot daggers off off-ball screens defined his resurgent performance.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 19.4m -12.6
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyus Jones 16.6m
4
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.3

Despite orchestrating the offense well, his inability to provide any scoring threat or defensive resistance resulted in a negative net rating. Opposing guards easily bypassed him on the perimeter, forcing the defense into constant rotation. The lack of aggression in attacking drop coverage severely limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +47.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 16.6m -10.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 7.4m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Forcing multiple wild attempts early in the shot clock completely killed the team's offensive momentum. A total lack of hustle or defensive engagement made him a severe liability while on the floor. Getting targeted repeatedly on defensive switches defined a disastrous short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 7.4m -4.8
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Brief rotational minutes yielded a slightly negative impact due to zero offensive involvement. While he provided a few solid defensive rotations, his inability to command any attention in the pick-and-roll clogged the paint. He essentially existed as a non-factor during his short time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 5.0m -3.2
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0