GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 38.6m
18
pts
12
reb
10
ast
Impact
+3.8

Operating as the central offensive hub, his elite playmaking and physical rebounding generated a massive +12.8 box impact. He consistently collapsed the defense to create high-quality looks for shooters, while maintaining excellent defensive positioning on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.6
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 38.6m -23.4
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Anthony Edwards 38.1m
30
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.1

Breaking out of a recent slump, he relentlessly attacked the paint and hunted his shot to generate a massive +18.6 box impact. His aggressive downhill drives forced the defense into constant rotation, while his engaged perimeter defense rounded out a dominant showing.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 38.1m -23.1
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jaden McDaniels 33.9m
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.2

Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+11.3) set the tone for a brilliant two-way masterclass. He paired elite hustle metrics with surgical shot selection, punishing defensive rotations by knocking down highly efficient looks from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +5.6
Defense +11.3
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 33.9m -20.5
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
S Rudy Gobert 32.5m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Perfect execution as a roll man allowed him to convert every single field goal attempt he took. His sheer size and relentless rim-running (+5.6 hustle) forced the defense to collapse inward, stabilizing the interior on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 82.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 32.5m -19.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.5

Errant perimeter shooting suppressed his offensive ceiling and limited his overall impact. However, he salvaged his minutes by playing absolute pest defense (+7.7) and generating crucial extra possessions through sheer hustle.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.7
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 25.9m -15.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 29.8m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Slicing through the defense with surgical precision, his elite shot selection drove a stellar +17.2 box impact. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, creating high-percentage looks at the rim without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 29.8m -18.0
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Naz Reid 21.4m
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

A frigid night from beyond the arc completely neutralized his value as a floor-spacing big. Even though his defensive rotations were crisp (+6.5), clanking every single look from deep allowed the opposing frontcourt to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 21.4m -13.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Bones Hyland 14.9m
13
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.6

Providing an immediate sparkplug effect, he torched the nets with highly efficient perimeter shot-making in limited minutes. His quick-trigger confidence from deep broke down the opposing second unit's defensive shell and swung the momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 14.9m -8.9
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Made the most of a very brief cameo by knocking down his only perimeter look. He stayed within the flow of the offense and provided a slight positive bump during his five minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 4.9m -2.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
23
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

High-volume production masked a surprisingly negative overall footprint during his heavy minutes. While he hunted his shot effectively and crashed the glass hard, the team consistently lost his shifts, suggesting his offensive rhythm came at the expense of overall lineup cohesion.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 35.2m -21.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Onyeka Okongwu 33.2m
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Sinking a pair of unexpected threes boosted his individual box metrics, but his overall footprint remained surprisingly negative. The underlying data suggests he struggled heavily in his specific frontcourt matchups, bleeding points during his shifts despite decent hustle numbers.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 33.2m -20.2
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 32.9m
38
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.2

An absolute flamethrower from beyond the arc, his aggressive shot-making carried the offensive load and generated a massive +20.6 box impact. Surprisingly, he paired this scoring outburst with incredibly stout perimeter defense (+9.4), resulting in a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg -34.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +9.4
Raw total +33.0
Avg player in 32.9m -19.8
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Asa Newell 24.8m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.4

Offensive invisibility severely limited his overall effectiveness during his heavy rotation minutes. He failed to establish any rhythm or gravity, and his inability to convert on limited looks dragged down the lineup's efficiency despite adequate hustle.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 24.8m -15.0
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.3

A disastrous shooting performance from the perimeter completely tanked his offensive value. While he offered solid resistance on the defensive end (+4.7), bricking every single one of his deep attempts created too many empty possessions to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -41.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -6.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 20.8m -12.6
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

Forcing up heavily contested looks from deep completely derailed his efficiency and hurt the team's transition defense. Although he found ways to contribute inside the arc, missing the vast majority of his three-point attempts created long rebounds that punished the team.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 31.3m -19.0
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Capitalizing on a sudden spike in usage, he delivered excellent energy and timely shot-making to anchor the second unit. His ability to stretch the floor with a crucial three-pointer forced the defense to respect him, opening up driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 19.5m -11.7
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 19.2m
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

Point-of-attack defensive pressure kept him somewhat viable (+6.5), but his offensive execution was virtually non-existent. Clanking all of his three-point attempts stalled out multiple possessions, neutralizing the value of his defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 19.2m -11.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 18.5m
12
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

Ruthless efficiency around the basket defined this highly productive stint. He capitalized perfectly on his limited touches by converting nearly every look, providing a massive offensive jolt without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 18.5m -11.2
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

A brief, forgettable cameo yielded purely negative results across the board. He missed his only perimeter look and offered zero resistance or hustle during his four minutes, causing a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -54.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 4.6m -2.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1