GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 32.0m
28
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.2

Absolute dominance in the restricted area generated a staggering net score. By converting nearly every look at the rim and dominating his individual matchup in the post, he provided an offensive masterclass that completely overwhelmed the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 32.0m -17.0
Impact +17.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 31.5m
13
pts
3
reb
13
ast
Impact
+0.6

Elite table-setting drove his positive metrics, as he consistently manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to spoon-feed his big men. While his own outside shot refused to fall, his masterful orchestration of the halfcourt offense kept the team's engine running smoothly.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 31.5m -16.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Noah Clowney 27.9m
22
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.5

An unexpected explosion of floor-spacing completely broke the opposing defensive scheme and skyrocketed his impact metrics. Combining lethal catch-and-shoot execution with relentless hustle on 50/50 balls, he delivered a career-defining performance that vastly exceeded his usual production.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 27.9m -14.9
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Danny Wolf 25.6m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Flawless perimeter execution and hyper-efficient finishing around the basket fueled a massive surge in his overall value. Beyond the scoring bump, his superb positional awareness on the defensive end suffocated opposing drives and cemented a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.2
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 25.6m -13.6
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Terance Mann 25.5m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Hidden behind a perfect night from beyond the arc was a disastrous string of live-ball turnovers that decimated his overall rating. His inability to protect the basketball against aggressive perimeter traps directly fueled opponent fast breaks, erasing any value his shooting provided.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 25.5m -13.4
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Smothering wing defense was the primary catalyst for his positive impact score tonight. He utilized his length to brilliantly contest passing lanes and disrupt the opponent's primary scorers, compensating for a slightly erratic performance from three-point range.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.9
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 25.4m -13.4
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 22.9m
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Costly defensive gambles and poor transition spacing dragged his net rating into the negative despite a noticeable uptick in scoring efficiency. He frequently found himself out of position while hunting for steals, allowing easy backdoor cuts that negated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 22.9m -12.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 20.1m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Tremendous effort on loose balls simply could not mask a dreadful shooting performance that crippled the team's spacing. By failing to convert open perimeter looks, he allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint and stall the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 20.1m -10.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

A brutal lack of touch around the basket severely punished his impact rating during his brief stint on the floor. Forcing heavily contested layups through traffic resulted in empty possessions that allowed the opposition to build momentum in transition.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 15.9m -8.5
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ben Saraf 13.0m
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Rushing his attempts against set defenses led to a dismal conversion rate that anchored his score deep in the negative. Though he showed flashes of competence in defensive rotations, his inability to generate quality offensive looks proved too detrimental to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -42.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 13.0m -6.9
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 36.5m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

Defensive intensity anchored his positive impact, completely neutralizing his perimeter assignments to generate a massive defensive rating. While his offensive aggression was muted compared to recent outings, his constant off-ball movement and high-energy closeouts kept the floor tilted in Chicago's favor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.8
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 36.5m -19.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anfernee Simons 33.9m
23
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.9

A barrage of forced, contested three-pointers severely undercut an otherwise productive scoring night. Despite finding success attacking the paint, his insistence on settling for low-percentage perimeter looks stalled the offense and kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 33.9m -18.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Matas Buzelis 26.2m
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Inefficient shot selection heavily penalized his overall rating, as clanking ten field goal attempts fueled opponent transition opportunities. He managed to salvage some value through active weak-side rim protection, but the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 26.2m -14.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
S Jaden Ivey 23.5m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless point-of-attack defense defined this performance, generating a stellar defensive metric that easily offset a handful of forced perimeter shots. His ability to navigate screens and disrupt the opposing ball handler's rhythm dictated the tempo whenever he was on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +9.0
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 23.5m -12.5
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his impact score during his minutes on the floor. Falling drastically short of his recent scoring averages, his inability to establish deep post position or command defensive attention left Chicago playing four-on-five in the halfcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -33.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 22.5m -12.0
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Snapping a streak of highly efficient outings, a heavy dose of isolation hero-ball resulted in eleven missed field goals that dragged down his overall rating. While his signature high-motor hustle metrics remained intact, the poor shot quality and negative defensive impact proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 32.1m -17.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Operating as an effective lob threat, he capitalized on pick-and-roll spacing to significantly outperform his recent offensive baseline. However, his net score flatlined near zero due to defensive rotational lapses that occasionally surrendered easy interior positioning to opposing bigs.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 25.5m -13.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Active hands in passing lanes bolstered his defensive metrics, yet his overall score dipped slightly below neutral. Struggling to finish through contact at the rim, his erratic shot selection in the painted area prevented him from capitalizing on the turnovers he helped create.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 21.9m -11.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Breaking out of a severe shooting slump, he provided a much-needed stabilizing presence on the wing. His positive rating was primarily driven by disciplined closeouts and switchability on defense, ensuring he contributed winning basketball even in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 18.0m -9.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0