GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 34.9m
23
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

A brutal shooting night from beyond the arc severely capped his offensive ceiling and fueled long rebounds for the opposition. He tried to salvage his impact by digging in defensively (+6.5) and chasing loose balls, but the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too costly. His insistence on settling for pull-up jumpers rather than attacking the rim defined this frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 35.9%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 34.9m -16.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Julius Randle 33.4m
17
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Heavy isolation usage and forced perimeter attempts against set defenses neutralized his otherwise solid physical play. He generated decent gravity in the post, but settling for contested long-range jumpers bailed out the opposing frontcourt. A few costly defensive lapses in transition ultimately dragged his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 33.4m -15.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 29.8m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Despite providing his usual elite rim deterrence (+5.1 defense), his overall impact suffered due to struggles defending out in space. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in high pick-and-roll actions, forcing him away from the basket and neutralizing his primary value. His highly efficient interior finishing couldn't offset the structural defensive compromises he was forced into.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 29.8m -14.2
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jaden McDaniels 28.2m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

An absolute offensive disappearing act completely tanked his overall value (-11.6), as he repeatedly passed up open looks and stalled the team's spacing. While he remained highly engaged on the perimeter fighting through screens (+3.5 hustle), playing 4-on-5 offensively was too much to overcome. The stark contrast between his usual scoring punch and this passive outing allowed defenders to freely roam and double-team others.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 28.2m -13.6
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.1

Total offensive paralysis (-12.1 impact) plagued his minutes, as he failed to generate any rim pressure or perimeter gravity. While he scrambled admirably on defense and fought for loose balls (+3.4 hustle), his inability to hit even basic spot-up looks completely broke the team's half-court spacing. Opponents aggressively sagged off him, effectively choking out the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 23.9m -11.5
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 25.4m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggling to finish through contact in the paint consistently derailed his offensive rhythm. He provided solid on-ball defensive pressure (+3.0) and hit enough perimeter shots to maintain some gravity, but his poor decision-making on drives led to empty trips. The inability to convert high-value interior looks ultimately dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -60.8
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 25.4m -12.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 23.9m
8
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Relentless work on the interior helped him maintain a positive influence despite a completely broken outside stroke. He smartly pivoted away from his struggling perimeter game to focus on hard rolls and positional rebounding. This adaptability kept the second unit afloat during crucial mid-game stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 23.9m -11.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bones Hyland 19.3m
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive frailties at the point of attack erased the value of his microwave scoring bursts. While he successfully broke down his primary defender to create clean looks, he was repeatedly targeted on the other end in isolation sets. The constant defensive compromises required to keep him on the floor resulted in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 19.3m -9.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A brief rotational cameo was marred by missed defensive assignments that gave up easy driving lanes. He converted his lone offensive opportunity by cutting smartly to the basket, but his lack of physical presence on the perimeter was immediately exploited.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 4.2m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

A complete lack of foot speed in transition left the defense vulnerable during his short stint on the floor. He operated purely as a stationary ball-mover, failing to bend the defense or create any meaningful advantages. The inability to keep up with the game's tempo quickly forced him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Immediate rim-running energy instantly tilted the floor during a highly productive garbage-time appearance. He sealed his man early in the post and provided excellent weak-side rim protection (+2.0 defense) to anchor the paint. This quick burst of two-way physicality maximized his limited minutes perfectly.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

An explosive scoring outburst in transition completely overwhelmed the opponent's secondary unit. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages by sprinting the lanes and aggressively hunting his shot. Pairing this offensive aggression with disruptive perimeter defense (+2.3) made him the defining spark of the final minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 46.2%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Floating aimlessly on the offensive end resulted in a completely invisible stint that bogged down the unit's spacing. While he managed to secure a couple of loose balls, his reluctance to engage in screening actions or hard cuts made the offense stagnant. He simply occupied space without applying any pressure on the defense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 33.5m
41
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+25.9

Leonard's staggering +25.9 impact was fueled by an overwhelming two-way masterclass, combining relentless isolation scoring with suffocating perimeter defense. His ability to consistently punish mismatches in the mid-post anchored the offense and forced constant double-teams. The sheer volume of his shot creation completely dictated the game's tempo, while his elite defensive metrics (+11.4) proved he gave absolutely nothing back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 14/30 (46.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.6%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +25.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +11.4
Raw total +41.9
Avg player in 33.5m -16.0
Impact +25.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S John Collins 29.3m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Spot-up gravity defined his offensive value, as flawless execution from beyond the arc stretched the opposing frontcourt thin. Despite elite shot selection and finishing efficiency, his overall net impact (+0.8) remained muted due to struggles navigating screens on the defensive end. He capitalized perfectly on pick-and-pop sequences but couldn't completely tilt the floor during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 29.3m -14.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Suffocating wing defense drove his positive impact (+2.4), as he consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and denied entry passes. Operating strictly as a low-usage cutter on offense ensured he wasted zero possessions. His value was entirely defined by his ability to erase the opponent's primary perimeter creator.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +38.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +8.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 28.4m -13.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 28.4m
9
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.5

A sudden surge in offensive confidence paired with his trademark ball pressure resulted in a highly disruptive two-way performance. He generated extra possessions through relentless off-ball hustle (+4.0) and timely deflections in the passing lanes. By capitalizing on open driving lanes when defenders cheated off him, he maximized his floor time and drove a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.4m -13.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 26.4m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Elite rim deterrence kept his defensive metrics sparkling (+7.0), effectively walling off the paint against driving guards. However, a severe drop in offensive aggression and spacing gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the lane. This lack of offensive output ultimately dragged his net impact into the red despite his stellar interior containment.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 26.4m -12.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 23.5m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Opportunistic perimeter shooting provided a crucial spacing element during the second-unit shifts. He maintained a positive overall impact by playing strictly within the flow of the offense and avoiding costly turnovers. A few missed defensive rotations kept his net rating modest, but his shot readiness was exactly what the bench needed.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 23.5m -11.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.3

Forced attempts in traffic and poor perimeter shot selection severely cratered his overall impact (-3.3). While he tried to compensate with active closeouts and secondary playmaking, the empty offensive possessions consistently stalled the team's momentum. His inability to find an offensive rhythm allowed the opposition to ignite their transition game off his misses.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 22.7m -10.9
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Flawless execution as a roll man completely warped the opposing interior defense, driving a massive +8.0 net impact. He punished every defensive rotation with decisive, high-percentage finishes at the rim. While his pick-and-roll coverage on the other end was occasionally a step slow (-1.2), his offensive gravity more than compensated for the lapses.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 92.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 17.4m -8.3
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Playing as a pure connective piece, his extreme passivity on offense allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. The lack of scoring threat bogged down half-court sets, leading to a negative net rating (-2.6) during his brief stint. He executed basic defensive assignments but failed to generate any disruptive events to swing momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 11.5m -5.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Christie 10.4m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Errant shot selection against set defenses quickly tanked his brief rotational minutes. He struggled to create separation off the bounce, leading to contested looks that fueled the opponent's fast break. Without any meaningful defensive playmaking to offset the offensive struggles, his floor time was a clear net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 10.4m -5.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

A brilliant burst of point-of-attack ball pressure completely short-circuited the opponent's offensive sets during garbage time. Despite not taking a single shot, his relentless defensive energy (+5.5) and quick hands forced immediate turnovers. He perfectly executed the role of a disruptive sparkplug in a highly condensed stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Disjointed offensive pacing and a lack of off-ball movement resulted in a quick negative impact during his short run. He struggled to initiate sets cleanly, allowing the defense to dictate the tempo. A lack of hustle plays or defensive disruption meant he couldn't salvage the brief rotational appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 4.2m -2.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1