GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 39.9m
31
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.2

Dominated the physical matchups on both ends, utilizing his size to finish through contact and anchor the rebounding battle. Exceptional defensive versatility effectively neutralized the opponent's primary frontcourt actions all night.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 39.9m -24.2
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-3.6

A catastrophic shooting night tanked his net impact, as clanking perimeter jumpers repeatedly killed offensive momentum. Despite generating massive hustle metrics through deflections and chasing down long rebounds, the sheer volume of wasted possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +11.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 37.6m -22.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 31.1m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Smothering point-of-attack defense and relentless loose-ball recoveries completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm. Those extra possessions and defensive stops easily outweighed the drag from his inefficient finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.6
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 31.1m -18.8
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 30.9m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Stretching the floor as a trail big opened up crucial driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. Strong rim-protection metrics kept his impact positive, though occasional lapses in pick-and-roll coverage prevented a higher overall score.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 30.9m -18.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.1

Searing perimeter efficiency completely broke the opponent's defensive shell, forcing them into panicked closeouts. His elite two-way play was highlighted by sharp weak-side defensive rotations that repeatedly snuffed out driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 23.5m -14.4
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
CJ McCollum 28.3m
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Efficient scoring in isolation sets wasn't enough to counteract defensive bleeding during transition sequences. His inability to contain dribble penetration allowed the opposition to generate high-value looks, dragging his overall rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 28.3m -17.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.5

Defensive miscommunications and late closeouts allowed opposing shooters to feast during his minutes on the floor. Offensively, failing to capitalize on wide-open corner looks compounded the damage, resulting in a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 23.5m -14.3
Impact -14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Jock Landale 17.1m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Provided a brief spark with hard screens that freed up the guards, but struggled with foot speed in drop coverage. Opposing bigs exploited his lack of lateral quickness in the pick-and-roll, slightly tipping his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 17.1m -10.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 8.1m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Maximized garbage-time minutes with flawless execution around the basket and active hands in the passing lanes. His disciplined verticality at the rim showcased an understanding of defensive spacing beyond his years.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -52.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 8.1m -4.9
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 35.8m
23
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a massive offensive rating spike, spacing the floor effectively during half-court sets. His sharp defensive rotations and consistent hustle ensured his scoring surge translated directly to winning margins.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 35.8m -21.6
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 35.3m
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.8

A brutal volume-shooting slump derailed his overall impact, as forced perimeter looks led to empty possessions. Despite commendable defensive effort and hustle plays to try and compensate, the sheer number of missed field goals severely handicapped the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 35.3m -21.3
Impact -13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Miles Bridges 34.4m
26
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

Relentless downhill attacking created high-percentage looks at the rim, driving a dominant box score impact. By avoiding low-efficiency jumpers and punishing mismatches inside, he maximized his possessions and anchored the frontcourt's physical presence.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.2%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 34.4m -20.9
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 32.2m
11
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Controlled the interior with excellent rebounding positioning, repeatedly denying second-chance opportunities for the opposition. His defensive anchoring and disciplined shot selection around the basket provided a highly stable baseline for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 32.2m -19.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 31.4m
19
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.9

Playmaking vision generated open looks for teammates, but his own erratic shot selection dragged down his overall efficiency. Settling for contested deep threes early in the shot clock neutralized the positive momentum created by his defensive activity.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 31.4m -19.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 17.4m
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Hesitancy to attack closeouts resulted in passive offensive possessions that stalled ball movement. Minimal defensive disruption and a lack of loose-ball recoveries prevented him from shifting the game's rhythm during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +58.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 17.4m -10.5
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Flawless execution on spot-up attempts punished the defense for sagging off the perimeter. He operated as a perfect release valve in the half-court, maximizing every touch without forcing the action.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.9%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 15.8m -9.5
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Struggled to establish deep post position, leading to rushed hook shots that failed to convert. A lack of rim-deterrence on the other end allowed opponents to finish comfortably in the paint, keeping his net rating in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.1m -9.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 12.5m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.2

Capitalized perfectly on limited touches by hitting timely catch-and-shoot opportunities to punish defensive rotations. High-energy bursts in a short stint provided a crucial momentum swing during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 12.5m -7.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 10.3m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Failed to generate meaningful dribble penetration, rendering his offensive shifts largely invisible. While he stayed attached to his man defensively, the inability to collapse the defense severely limited his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 10.3m -6.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2