GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Egor Dëmin 32.4m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
0.0

A perfectly neutral overall impact (+0.0) highlights a game of extreme trade-offs. While he provided valuable spacing with his perimeter stroke and solid defensive rotations (+5.1), he likely bled value through careless ball security or transition defensive lapses. The positive half-court contributions were entirely offset by mistakes in the margins.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 32.4m -18.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 31.5m
20
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.1

A stark disconnect between his high scoring volume and a -7.1 net impact points to severe issues outside of shot-making. He likely surrendered frequent blow-bys on the perimeter or committed costly live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. The raw offensive production simply could not outpace the defensive bleeding during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 31.5m -17.5
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Day'Ron Sharpe 30.8m
19
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.8

Complete control of the painted area drove a staggering +19.8 overall impact. He bullied opposing bigs for deep post position, converting highly efficient looks while drawing multiple defensive fouls. His sheer physical dominance on the interior dictated the terms of engagement on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.7
Raw total +37.0
Avg player in 30.8m -17.2
Impact +19.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Ziaire Williams 28.4m
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Blistering perimeter shot-making and elite defensive length fueled a highly productive +9.7 impact score. He punished defensive sagging by burying transition threes, instantly shifting the game's momentum. On the other end, his active hands and quick closeouts (+9.1 defense) completely neutralized his primary assignment.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 28.4m -15.8
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Terance Mann 25.3m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.9

Offensive invisibility and clunky finishing resulted in a brutal -13.9 net impact. He routinely passed up open looks only to drive into contested traffic, killing the team's offensive flow. Despite passable defensive positioning, his inability to generate any scoring gravity made him a severe liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 25.3m -14.1
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 22.7m
14
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Highly inefficient interior finishing dragged his overall impact (-4.5) into the red. He repeatedly forced contested shots through multiple defenders rather than kicking out to open shooters, wasting valuable offensive possessions. Those empty trips allowed the opposition to consistently leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 22.7m -12.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Drake Powell 19.6m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Passive offensive play and a lack of overall involvement drove a poor -8.9 impact score. He frequently passed up open driving lanes, effectively allowing the defense to rest while he was on the floor. This lack of aggression bogged down the half-court offense and generated negative momentum during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 19.6m -10.9
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Ben Saraf 17.2m
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Efficient opportunistic scoring kept his overall impact slightly above water (+0.3) in a limited role. He capitalized on broken plays and defensive miscommunications, finding soft spots in the coverage for easy finishes. However, a lack of overall defensive playmaking prevented him from leaving a larger footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -45.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 17.2m -9.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 16.5m
0
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Complete offensive invisibility resulted in a negative overall impact (-2.4) despite decent defensive effort. His inability to generate any scoring gravity allowed his defender to freely roam and clog driving lanes for teammates. While he executed his defensive assignments well (+3.2), playing 4-on-5 offensively proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -48.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 16.5m -9.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jalen Wilson 15.6m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A disastrous shooting performance cratered his net impact (-5.5) during his brief time on the floor. He settled for heavily contested, low-percentage jumpers early in the shot clock, completely short-circuiting the team's offensive rhythm. Even a respectable defensive effort (+2.6) couldn't salvage the damage done by his poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -51.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 15.6m -8.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 32.0m
23
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

High-volume scoring masked a surprisingly pedestrian overall impact (+0.5) during his minutes. While his aggressive downhill drives generated excellent box-score value, he bled points on the margins through defensive miscommunications and likely live-ball turnovers. The raw production was undeniable, but the hidden costs kept him from truly dominating the game.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 32.0m -17.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kam Jones 31.2m
11
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.8

Poor shot selection from the perimeter severely damaged his overall impact (-11.8) despite an uptick in raw scoring. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, leading to long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. Those wasted offensive possessions completely overshadowed his otherwise passable defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 31.2m -17.4
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jay Huff 30.6m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite rim-protection and rotational awareness drove a massive +12.1 defensive rating. He consistently deterred drives into the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage perimeter bailouts late in the shot clock. His active screening and hustle plays (+4.0) further elevated his steady two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +12.1
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 30.6m -17.1
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
S Kobe Brown 28.1m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

A drastic drop in offensive aggression tanked his overall impact (-8.0) despite decent defensive metrics. His hesitation to shoot broke a four-game streak of efficient scoring, allowing defenders to completely sag off him in the half-court. This passivity created severe spacing issues that stalled out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 28.1m -15.6
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ben Sheppard 19.0m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Perimeter gravity was the main catalyst for his positive overall impact (+2.4) in a limited rotation role. By punishing defensive rotations from beyond the arc, he forced hard closeouts that opened up driving lanes for teammates. Steady positional defense ensured he didn't give back the value he created on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 19.0m -10.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 26.8m
19
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.4

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a monstrous +17.4 overall impact score. He punished smaller matchups inside with ruthless efficiency while simultaneously cleaning up the glass to limit second-chance opportunities. His relentless energy (+4.8 hustle) set a physical tone that the opposition simply could not match.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.3
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 26.8m -15.1
Impact +17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Taelon Peter 26.7m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

High-volume perimeter spacing anchored his positive overall impact (+2.6) during his minutes. He showed zero hesitation pulling the trigger on catch-and-shoot opportunities, which stretched the opposing defense past its breaking point. Solid weak-side defensive rotations (+5.0) ensured his offensive contributions translated to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 26.7m -15.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.4

Timely perimeter shot-making and disciplined point-of-attack defense resulted in a strong +6.4 net impact. He consistently navigated screens well, blowing up opponent dribble hand-offs to disrupt their offensive rhythm. Offensively, his willingness to take and make catch-and-shoot looks kept the floor perfectly spaced.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 26.5m -14.9
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.5

A lack of finishing touch at the rim dragged his overall impact (-6.5) firmly into the negative. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble but failed to convert in traffic, essentially resulting in empty possessions. Without any defensive playmaking to compensate, those squandered offensive trips proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 19.1m -10.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3