GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 32.3m
13
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

A catastrophic -1.8 defensive rating and poor transition awareness ruined what was otherwise a highly efficient scoring night. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts and failed to close out on corner shooters, heavily punishing the team's overall defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense -1.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 32.3m -16.7
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.3

Dynamic off-the-bounce shooting stretched the defense thin, but his inability to navigate ball screens defensively (-0.3 Def) limited his overall value. Opposing guards consistently turned the corner on him, forcing the interior defense into compromising rotation scenarios.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -34.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 31.5m -16.3
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 30.2m
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.4

Slashed effectively to the rim, but his total impact was heavily muted by defensive lapses in transition and poorly timed fouls. While the offensive efficiency was pristine, giving away free points at the charity stripe kept his net rating grounded.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 30.2m -15.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 29.9m
17
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.2

Defensive dominance and elite playmaking from the high post drove a massive +19.2 impact score despite a streaky shooting performance. His +10.3 defensive rating was anchored by blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs and generating deflections that ignited the fast break.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense +10.3
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 29.9m -15.4
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jakob Poeltl 20.1m
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Exceptional positional discipline in drop coverage and timely rim contests stabilized the interior defense. He generated immense value through hard screen assists and sealing off defenders, ensuring high-quality looks for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 20.1m -10.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 23.8m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.5

An absolute offensive black hole whose inability to convert at the rim or hit open jumpers allowed the defense to play five-on-four. Despite applying relentless on-ball pressure (+4.7 Def), his offensive spacing issues completely suffocated the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -10.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.7
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 23.8m -12.4
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Brutal shot selection from the perimeter derailed offensive momentum and fueled opponent run-outs. He competed admirably on the defensive glass, but forcing contested early-clock triples heavily outweighed his rotational efforts.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 19.6m -10.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Hesitancy to attack closeouts bogged down the offensive flow, rendering him a liability on that end of the floor. He flashed excellent lateral quickness to stay in front of drives (+3.8 Def), but the lack of offensive aggression severely hampered the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 19.0m -9.8
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Gradey Dick 16.1m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Defensive fragility and a tendency to get lost off the ball resulted in a damaging -4.8 net impact. While he found some rhythm spotting up, opponents ruthlessly targeted his closeouts and blew past him for high-percentage paint finishes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 16.1m -8.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Made his mark entirely through high-motor weak-side rim protection and active hands in the passing lanes. The offensive output was non-existent, but his +3.6 defensive rating proved crucial in surviving a sloppy second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 9.8m -5.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence by staying disciplined within the defensive shell. A quick, decisive cut to the basket highlighted a fundamentally sound, mistake-free stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Failed to make a tangible imprint during a brief rotational cameo. Was a step slow on defensive rotations, leading to a pair of open looks that subtly dragged his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Paul Reed 32.6m
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.6

Dominated the interior with a relentless combination of rim-running and offensive glass crashing that yielded a staggering +18.6 Total score. His elite +10.5 Defensive rating stemmed from blowing up pick-and-roll coverages and recovering to contest shots at the summit.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +10.5
Raw total +35.4
Avg player in 32.6m -16.8
Impact +18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 2
S Tobias Harris 31.2m
12
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

A stark disconnect between his raw production and actual game flow resulted in a marginal +0.7 Total impact. While his positional rebounding and weak-side rotations graded out well defensively, stalled offensive possessions and poorly timed isolation attempts bled value.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 31.2m -16.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cade Cunningham 30.1m
28
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+21.0

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense and lethal off-the-dribble shot creation fueled a dominant +21.0 impact score. He consistently manipulated defensive shells to create high-value looks, while simultaneously digging in for a surprisingly stout +10.8 defensive contribution.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +5.5
Defense +10.8
Raw total +36.6
Avg player in 30.1m -15.6
Impact +21.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 24.5m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Defensive liabilities and targeted matchup hunting by the opponent tanked his overall value into the negative (-2.3) despite decent spacing gravity. Giving up straight-line drives and committing late-clock rotation fouls erased any equity generated by his perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 24.5m -12.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 24.4m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite point-of-attack disruption and relentless offensive rebounding drove a massive +5.5 Hustle rating, completely offsetting a quiet scoring night. His offensive passivity allowed defenders to sag off, slightly dragging down his overall net impact despite the defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 24.4m -12.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Getting ruthlessly targeted on defensive switches completely overshadowed a passable shooting night, leading to a severe -5.0 Total score. Opponents identified his slow lateral slides early and repeatedly isolated him in space to generate easy paint touches.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 20.9m -10.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 17.6m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Ball-stopping tendencies and careless live-ball turnovers dragged his overall impact into the red. Although he hit a few timely perimeter looks, his failure to keep the offensive flow moving allowed the defense to consistently reset.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 17.6m -9.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Poor shot selection and a tendency to hijack the offensive rhythm resulted in a damaging -4.4 Total impact. Settling for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock completely neutralized the modest defensive pressure he applied on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 16.8m -8.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Offensive stagnation cratered his overall rating, as a complete inability to finish around the basket derailed multiple promising possessions. Even his typically reliable energy metrics (+1.9 Hustle) couldn't salvage a performance defined by forced drives into heavy traffic.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 16.3m -8.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tolu Smith 15.3m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

A failure to anchor the paint or secure contested defensive rebounds allowed second-chance opportunities that devastated his net rating. He was frequently caught out of position in drop coverage, surrendering uncontested floaters that steadily bled points.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 15.3m -7.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Rushed offensive execution during a brief stint resulted in empty possessions and a quick hook from the coaching staff. He showed a flash of defensive awareness with a solid weak-side rotation, but the erratic shot attempts outweighed the effort.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to organize the second unit during his limited minutes, leading to disjointed sets and stalled momentum. A lack of point-of-attack aggression allowed opposing guards to comfortably dictate the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 3.9m -2.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Two ill-advised, contested jumpers in semi-transition instantly killed offensive momentum and tanked his brief impact score. Complete invisibility on the defensive end further compounded the negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 2.6m -1.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0