GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 33.0m
25
pts
14
reb
6
ast
Impact
+26.5

Dominated the interior with overwhelming physicality, generating extra possessions through relentless offensive rebounding. His weak-side rim protection completely deterred drives during a massive third-quarter surge, anchoring an elite positive swing.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +8.3
Defense +13.9
Raw total +44.5
Avg player in 33.0m -18.0
Impact +26.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 31.8m
20
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Forced the issue in heavy traffic, leading to blocked shots and live-ball turnovers that ignited the other team's fast break. The scoring punch was entirely negated by tunnel vision during key second-half possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +45.6
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 31.8m -17.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.2

Dictated the tempo beautifully in transition, consistently making the right read on the break to generate high-quality looks. His point-of-attack defense disrupted the opposing guards' timing, cementing a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +46.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 28.1m -15.4
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brandon Ingram 26.0m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Stagnated the offense with heavy isolation play against set defenses, grinding ball movement to a halt. While his length provided some positional defensive value, his ball-stopping tendencies allowed the opposition to go on a crucial run during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 26.0m -14.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Early foul trouble completely derailed his rhythm and forced him to the bench before he could establish a sweat. Never found a way to impact the game offensively due to the disjointed, abbreviated playing time.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 8.2m -4.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Rushed his perimeter looks early in the shot clock, leading to long rebounds and immediate transition opportunities for the opponent. Active hands on defense partially salvaged his rating, but the erratic shot selection proved costly.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 27.2m -14.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.8

Stretched the floor effectively as a trailing big, forcing opposing centers out of the paint and opening up driving lanes. Timely cuts along the baseline punished over-rotations, driving a highly efficient offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 21.6m -11.9
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 19.2m
6
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.8

Wreaked havoc with his on-ball pressure to generate high hustle metrics, but his inability to convert at the rim allowed the defense to sag off him. The resulting spacing issues bogged down the half-court offense, pulling his net score deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -26.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 19.2m -10.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gradey Dick 15.6m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Excellent off-ball movement kept the defense scrambling, creating driving lanes for his teammates even when he wasn't shooting. Surprisingly robust positional defense against bigger wings was the hidden driver behind his strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 15.6m -8.5
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.8

Completely sealed off the defensive glass, denying second-chance points during a critical second-quarter stretch. His vertical spacing as a lob threat warped the defense, creating a massive positive swing without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 15.5m -8.5
Impact +13.8
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
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Short-circuited several offensive sets with contested, early-clock heaves from the perimeter. The lack of scoring punch made him a liability, as defenders completely ignored him to pack the paint against drivers.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 7.4m -4.1
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Brought immediate energy in a brief stint, blowing up a dribble hand-off to spark a fast break. Despite rushing a few offensive looks, his disruptive defensive presence yielded a quick positive bump.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Burned a couple of minutes in garbage time without recording any counting stats. A blown defensive assignment on a backdoor cut accounted for the slight negative dip in his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Only saw the floor for a fleeting end-of-quarter cameo. Did not have enough time to register any meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jay Huff 30.0m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Elite rim protection altered the geometry of the court, consistently deterring drives and fueling a massive defensive rating. High-level screen-setting on the other end freed up shooters, maximizing his two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 30.0m -16.3
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 25.5m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.1

Brutal shot selection completely derailed the offense, as he forced contested mid-range jumpers early in the clock. While his defensive effort remained steady, the sheer volume of bricked shots fueled transition attacks going the other way.

Shooting
FG 4/18 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.1%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense -8.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 25.5m -13.9
Impact -16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Pascal Siakam 24.2m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

High offensive volume was offset by sluggish transition recoveries and a handful of live-ball turnovers that fed the opponent's fast break. Getting targeted on switches during a late third-quarter run ultimately flattened out his overall value.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.2m -13.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 23.5m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Passive offensive stretches allowed the defense to load up elsewhere, stalling the team's half-court rhythm. He repeatedly got caught on screens defensively, conceding open perimeter looks that tanked his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 23.5m -12.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Johnny Furphy 15.4m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Impact cratered by poor defensive positioning against baseline cuts, which negated his highly efficient touch around the rim. A pair of badly timed fouls in the penalty further dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 15.4m -8.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

Settled for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint, breaking his recent streak of high-efficiency basketball. His active hands in the passing lanes provided some hustle value, but the offensive inefficiency bled heavily into his negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 27.9m -15.2
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Ben Sheppard 26.9m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.3

Struggled heavily with ball security, committing unforced errors that killed momentum and sparked opponent runs. A lack of weak-side defensive awareness further dragged down his overall impact during key transitional sequences.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 26.9m -14.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Micah Potter 25.9m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Efficient offensive execution was undermined by poor pick-and-roll coverage on the other end. Dropping too deep against ball-handlers conceded rhythm jumpers, resulting in a slightly negative net impact despite a clean offensive sheet.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 25.9m -14.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 25.0m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Relentlessly targeted on switches defensively, bleeding points in isolation against bigger wings. Even though he converted his offensive touches, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards neutralized any positive gains.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 25.0m -13.7
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.9

Masterful pace control in the half-court defined his stint, consistently breaking down the defense to find cutters. He kept the second unit highly organized, though a couple of aggressive defensive gambles kept his net score modest.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 15.7m -8.5
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4