GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 35.8m
28
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

An aggressive, high-usage scoring explosion drove his massive box impact, more than doubling his usual offensive output. While his perimeter jumper was erratic, relentless driving and mid-range shot creation overpowered a slightly negative defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 35.8m -15.3
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Royce O'Neale 33.6m
14
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

A quintessential 3-and-D masterclass fueled an excellent +6.5 total impact. Elite hustle (+5.2) and lockdown perimeter defense (+5.3) paired perfectly with timely floor-spacing to swing the momentum whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 33.6m -14.3
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Devin Booker 32.1m
21
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.9

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc suppressed his usual elite scoring impact. However, he salvaged a positive overall rating by shifting into a facilitator role and utilizing active hands (+4.8 Hustle) to create transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 62.4%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense -1.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 32.1m -13.8
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Mark Williams 30.7m
11
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Absolute dominance in the paint anchored a staggering +9.9 defensive impact score. He controlled the restricted area defensively while generating crucial extra possessions through high-motor hustle plays (+3.1).

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.9
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 30.7m -13.2
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Disastrous perimeter shooting completely tanked his offensive value, as he forced contested looks from deep. Miraculously, off-the-charts hustle (+9.0) and tenacious on-ball defense (+4.7) nearly erased the offensive damage.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -42.6
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +9.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 28.4m -12.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Gritty effort plays (+6.2 Hustle) salvaged a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. By focusing on loose balls and dirty work, he managed to carve out a positive impact despite struggling to finish at the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +6.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 27.0m -11.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 17.0m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

A stark drop in usage broke his recent streak of efficient interior scoring, making him an offensive non-factor. Even with solid positional defense (+2.2 Def), his inability to pressure the rim offensively resulted in a negative net score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 17.0m -7.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Green 16.7m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

A sharp decline in offensive aggression rendered him largely ineffective during his minutes. Failing to register a single hustle play highlighted a lack of engagement that dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 16.7m -7.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 10.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Rushed shot selection in limited minutes quickly torpedoed his offensive value. Lacking his usual defensive sharpness (-0.4 Def), he failed to find a rhythm and bled value while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 10.6m -4.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Total offensive passivity doomed his short stint, as he failed to attempt a single shot from the field. While he showed flashes of defensive competence (+1.3 Def), the complete lack of scoring gravity made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -80.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 8.1m -3.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 39.8m
29
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.5

High-volume shot creation kept the offense afloat, even though perimeter struggles dragged down his overall efficiency. Surprisingly, it was his disruptive point-of-attack defense (+5.9 Def) that truly salvaged his net impact and kept him highly positive.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 56.1%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 39.8m -17.1
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 38.2m
18
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Elevated scoring volume drove a positive offensive impact, as he stepped up as a primary option with a significant scoring bump over his recent average. His perimeter shot-making kept the floor spaced, while active defensive rotations (+4.5 Def) ensured his overall net rating stayed firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 38.2m -16.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 33.0m
33
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

Total dominance as a floor-stretching big fueled a massive +11.4 net impact. His willingness to step out and hit from deep punished drop coverages, while steady rim protection (+2.4 Def) anchored the team on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 33.0m -14.2
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 25.2m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

A drastic drop in scoring aggression severely limited his overall effectiveness, as he passed up looks he normally takes. Though he contributed solid hustle plays (+2.9), the lack of offensive gravity resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 25.2m -10.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 17.6m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Despite maintaining his highly efficient interior finishing streak, limited overall involvement capped his offensive ceiling. A slight negative defensive impact (-0.2) combined with low usage ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 17.6m -7.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.4

A severe lack of offensive assertiveness ruined his impact score, breaking a recent streak of efficient scoring nights. Compounding the low volume was a step slow on defensive closeouts (-1.2 Def), making him a net negative across his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -1.2
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 28.2m -12.1
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Defensive versatility and strong rotational awareness (+3.3 Def) were the bright spots in an otherwise quiet outing. However, a passive offensive approach allowed defenders to sag off, stalling team spacing and resulting in a poor net score.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 26.6m -11.5
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Practically invisible on the offensive end, his refusal to hunt shots cratered his value. He managed to provide decent weak-side help defense (+2.5 Def), but it was nowhere near enough to overcome the offensive void.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +42.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 16.5m -7.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 14.8m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite rim deterrence (+4.2 Def) defined this brief but highly effective stint. He played perfectly within his role, finishing dump-offs efficiently while anchoring the paint to generate a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +61.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 14.8m -6.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2