GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 35.6m
17
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
-1.3

Forced shots early in the clock and a heavy reliance on contested mid-range pull-ups torpedoed his efficiency. While he generated decent looks for others, his own inability to finish at the rim allowed the defense to stay home on shooters. A few costly live-ball turnovers in the second half ultimately tilted his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 35.6m -18.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 33.0m
22
pts
14
reb
11
ast
Impact
+10.2

Defensive rebounding dominance and brilliant positional awareness (+12.7 Def) anchored a commanding two-way performance. He completely neutralized the opponent's interior passing lanes with quick hands and elite anticipation. Operating as the offensive hub, his precise kick-outs out of double teams consistently generated wide-open looks for the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +12.7
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 33.0m -17.6
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 7
S Christian Braun 31.9m
20
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Sizzling perimeter shot-making kept his head above water, but poor rotational discipline nearly erased his offensive contributions. He was consistently late on closeouts, allowing opposing shooters to find a rhythm from deep. The scoring volume was crucial, yet his inability to contain dribble penetration severely capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 31.9m -16.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 29.4m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite spatial awareness on the defensive end (+5.2) drove a positive impact despite a lower-than-usual offensive usage. He executed flawless closeouts and provided timely weak-side help to blow up multiple opponent sets. Taking only high-value shots ensured he never forced the issue or disrupted the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 29.4m -15.5
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A massive scoring surge masked underlying defensive lapses that ultimately dragged his net impact into the red. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts and struggled to navigate through off-ball screens. The offensive aggression was a welcome spark, but poor transition defense negated much of his scoring value.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 28.9m -15.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

A steady diet of heavily contested, off-the-dribble perimeter shots derailed the offensive rhythm and fueled his negative score. He frequently bypassed the extra pass, settling for low-percentage looks that sparked opponent transition opportunities. Even with decent defensive effort, his shot selection proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 29.4m -15.7
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 25.3m
1
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

An absolute offensive nightmare (-6.9 total) saw him brick every attempt from the floor and kill multiple possessions with indecision. Despite bringing his trademark grit and point-of-attack disruption (+4.6 Def), his inability to convert at the rim allowed the defense to completely sag off him. His offensive struggles severely cramped the floor for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 7.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 25.3m -13.4
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Bruising interior physicality forced the defense into foul trouble, generating highly efficient trips to the charity stripe. He carved out deep post position effortlessly, demanding double teams that warped the opposing defensive shell. Solid verticality at the rim (+2.6 Def) ensured he was a net positive during his bruising rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 15.0m -8.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Ponderous decision-making at the point of attack allowed the defense to continually reset and load up the strong side. He failed to generate any downhill pressure, settling for contested floaters that led to empty trips. Bleeding value on the defensive end, he was repeatedly blown by in isolation matchups.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 11.6m -6.1
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 36.0m
22
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.3

Masterful tempo control and elite pick-and-roll orchestration stabilized the offense during crucial stretches. His defensive metrics (+5.8) spiked due to excellent post-defense on switches and timely digs into the nail. Even when his perimeter shot wasn't falling, his ability to draw fouls and collapse the paint kept his value highly positive.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 36.0m -19.1
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 34.6m
22
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.5

Dominant interior positioning dictated the terms of engagement all night, fueling a massive +14.5 overall impact. He consistently sealed his man early in the shot clock, generating high-value trips to the rim while anchoring the paint defensively. Elite screen-setting freed up Cleveland's guards and generated cascading advantages in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +33.0
Avg player in 34.6m -18.5
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
32
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
+17.8

Relentless point-of-attack aggression broke the opposing defensive shell and drove an elite +17.8 impact score. Beyond the heavy scoring load, his active hands in passing lanes and exceptional closeout effort (+6.3 Def) suffocated perimeter threats. He expertly manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to create driving lanes for himself and open corners for teammates.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +6.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 34.1m -18.0
Impact +17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 31.2m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Empty scoring volume masked a deeply flawed floor game that tanked his overall impact (-7.0). Poor rotational awareness on defense and ill-timed gambles allowed opponents to feast in the half-court. He repeatedly stalled the offensive flow by over-dribbling into contested mid-range looks.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 31.2m -16.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 25.1m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Perfect execution from beyond the arc wasn't enough to rescue his overall impact (-4.7). Operating strictly as a stationary floor spacer, his inability to bend the defense or generate secondary actions limited his offensive footprint. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, bleeding value on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 25.1m -13.3
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Frenetic energy and disruptive on-ball pressure (+4.8 Def) were undone by erratic decision-making with the ball in his hands. He forced several heavily contested drives into traffic, leading to empty possessions that stalled momentum. The defensive intensity couldn't quite bridge the gap left by his inability to space the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +6.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 24.6m -13.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 19.6m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

Offensive invisibility cratered his overall value (-9.6) despite solid point-of-attack resistance on the other end. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to aggressively trap ball-handlers and clog the paint. His hesitation to shoot off the catch short-circuited multiple offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 19.6m -10.4
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverages allowed opposing guards to consistently turn the corner, driving his negative defensive impact. While he managed to stretch the floor briefly, his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds gave away crucial extra possessions. He was repeatedly targeted in space during his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 13.4m -7.1
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Flawless execution from the perimeter was overshadowed by glaring missed rotations on the backline. He struggled to anchor the paint against heavier matchups, getting sealed out of rebounding position too easily. The scoring punch was a nice bonus, but giving up straight-line drives kept him in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 12.5m -6.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

A completely passive offensive approach allowed the defense to play five-on-four whenever he was on the court. He refused to look at the rim, passing up open gaps and killing the team's spacing in the half-court. This lack of aggression compounded into a disastrous -7.8 impact score during a very brief shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 8.9m -4.8
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2