GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 33.4m
21
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+19.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense and elite hustle plays completely overwhelmed the opposition. He seamlessly translated defensive stops into transition opportunities, capitalizing with highly efficient finishing. This two-way clinic set the tone for the entire game and skyrocketed his overall value.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +7.9
Defense +11.6
Raw total +38.9
Avg player in 33.4m -19.0
Impact +19.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Julius Randle 32.9m
41
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.0

An absolute masterclass in bully-ball and shot creation tore apart the opposing frontcourt. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post, blending raw power with soft touch on his jumpers. The sheer gravity of his scoring outbursts dictated the flow of the game and drove a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 14/24 (58.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +29.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +35.4
Avg player in 32.9m -18.4
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Anthony Edwards 32.7m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Excellent perimeter shooting was heavily offset by likely ball-security issues and forced passes into traffic. While his defensive engagement was strong, sloppy execution on the offensive end kept his net impact hovering near neutral. Flashes of brilliance were constantly battling against momentum-killing mistakes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.1
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 32.7m -18.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.2

Bricklaying from beyond the arc severely handicapped his otherwise stellar defensive effort. He fought over screens and generated deflections, but an inability to punish defensive rotations with open jumpers cratered the team's spacing. Offensive futility ultimately outweighed his gritty hustle.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 29.0m -16.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 27.8m
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite screen-setting and vertical gravity opened up massive driving lanes for the perimeter players. He anchored the drop coverage flawlessly, forcing ball-handlers into tough, contested floaters. Disciplined positioning and efficient finishing around the basket solidified a highly effective performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 27.8m -15.8
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 28.4m
12
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.6

Relentless rim pressure and disciplined point-of-attack defense drove a highly productive shift. He consistently beat his man off the dribble, collapsing the defense and generating high-quality looks. The ability to navigate screens defensively further amplified his positive footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 28.4m -16.1
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 23.8m
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

A mixed bag of solid defensive rotations and untimely offensive mistakes resulted in a nearly flat impact score. He stretched the floor adequately but occasionally forced the issue when attacking closeouts. The balancing act between timely buckets and defensive lapses kept him right at the break-even point.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 23.8m -13.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.9

Errant shot selection and defensive vulnerabilities made him a prime target for the opposing offense. He struggled to stay attached to his assignments, bleeding points on one end while stalling possessions with contested jumpers on the other. This lack of two-way execution resulted in a sharply negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.8
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 8.8m -4.9
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Tenacious on-ball defense and opportunistic scoring maximized his short time on the floor. He disrupted passing lanes and capitalized on the ensuing chaos with decisive offensive actions. This high-energy approach injected immediate life into the lineup.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 7.6m -4.2
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Quiet but mistake-free basketball allowed him to post a slightly positive impact during garbage time. He maintained proper spacing and executed defensive rotations without gambling. Sometimes simply holding the fort and avoiding negative plays is enough to stay in the green.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 4.1m -2.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.1

Exceptional defensive activity and quick rotations defined a highly impactful brief appearance. He completely shut down his side of the floor, turning defensive stops into immediate transition pushes. The raw energy he brought completely overwhelmed the opposition's second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 4.1m -2.3
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 3.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a liability during his brief stint. He passed up open looks and failed to bend the defense, leading to stagnant possessions. The resulting lack of spacing allowed defenders to pack the paint and stifle the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 3.8m -2.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Solid positional defense and active hands kept him in the positive during a very short run. He avoided forcing any offensive action, instead focusing entirely on executing the defensive scheme. Doing the dirty work without demanding touches proved to be a winning formula.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 32.1m
9
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Carelessness with the basketball completely erased a highly efficient shooting night. Positive defensive metrics were overshadowed by live-ball turnovers that consistently fed opponent transition opportunities. This lack of offensive discipline turned what should have been a strong complementary role into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 32.1m -18.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 30.5m
23
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.5

High-volume gunning masked the underlying inefficiency of his offensive game, as he missed a significant number of shots from inside the arc. While he connected from deep, his struggles to finish in traffic and poor defensive rotations dragged down his overall impact. The reliance on tough, contested jumpers ultimately hurt the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 30.5m -17.2
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jerami Grant 29.4m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Offensive inefficiency severely undercut his overall value, as he struggled to find a rhythm and clanked a majority of his attempts from the field. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to generate clean looks against the defense resulted in a negative net impact. Forced attempts in isolation possessions ultimately stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 29.4m -16.7
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Donovan Clingan 27.7m
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

Dominant rim protection and relentless activity on the glass drove a massive positive impact. He completely altered the geometry of the paint, forcing opponents into heavily contested looks and bad decisions. This interior presence more than made up for a few missed bunnies around the basket.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +10.1
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 27.7m -15.7
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Deni Avdija 26.9m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.3

A disastrous shooting performance torpedoed his overall rating, as he failed to connect on any of his looks from beyond the arc. His shot selection was highly questionable, repeatedly settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint. The sheer volume of empty possessions he generated completely derailed the offense.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -55.5
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 26.9m -15.2
Impact -16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Blake Wesley 23.6m
4
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.9

Stagnant offensive decision-making and poor spacing severely limited his effectiveness on the floor. While he provided some resistance on the perimeter defensively, his inability to convert open looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. The resulting offensive bottleneck drove his impact score firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 23.6m -13.2
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Excellent shot selection and clinical finishing fueled his positive contribution. He consistently found soft spots in the defense, punishing late closeouts with high-percentage looks. However, a lack of defensive resistance prevented his impact score from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 20.0m -11.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive lapses and likely ball-security issues negated a highly efficient scoring output. Despite finding the range from deep, his inability to stay in front of his man at the point of attack gave back crucial points. His overall impact suffered because he failed to balance offensive aggression with defensive responsibility.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.2%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 18.8m -10.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Vertical spacing and disciplined rim running provided a steadying presence during his brief stint. He anchored the paint effectively, rotating on time to deter drives without fouling. This low-mistake, high-efficiency approach optimized his limited minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 11.6m -6.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

A lack of offensive assertiveness and disjointed spacing left him as a non-factor on that end of the floor. He struggled to find the pace of the game, often floating on the perimeter without putting pressure on the defense. This passive approach resulted in empty minutes that dragged down the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -55.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 9.9m -5.6
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.6

Immediate defensive activity and flawless execution in a short burst defined his highly impactful cameo. He walled off the paint effectively and made quick, decisive reads when the ball swung his way. Maximizing every second of his floor time, he provided a perfect spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Forcing bad shots early in the shot clock completely doomed his short stint on the court. He failed to connect on any of his attempts, disrupting the team's offensive rhythm with poor decision-making. The inability to hit the broad side of a barn resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -5.5
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2