GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Jordan Goodwin 27.7m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.0

Relentless point-of-attack hustle and defensive disruption perfectly balanced out a highly inefficient shooting night. Generating extra possessions through sheer effort completely erased the cost of his missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -54.3
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 27.7m -17.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 24.4m
23
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Relentless defensive physicality barely kept his rating positive against a barrage of poor shot choices. Clanking a high volume of contested jumpers stunted the offense, but his ability to lock down the opposing primary initiator salvaged his shift.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 42.1%
Net Rtg -51.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 24.4m -14.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Royce O'Neale 23.6m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Impact plummeted due to a highly one-dimensional shot profile that saw him miss a barrage of attempts from beyond the arc. Settling exclusively for perimeter looks allowed the defense to stay home and stagnated the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 23.6m -14.4
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor execution when orchestrating the offense and failing to capitalize on open looks tanked his rating. His inability to break down the primary defender led to stagnant possessions and late-clock bailouts.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 22.5m -13.8
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Mark Williams 15.9m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A severe lack of rebounding presence for a center muted the value of his reliable interior finishing. Getting pushed around on the defensive glass prevented his team from securing crucial stops, resulting in a slightly negative overall grade.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -58.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 15.9m -9.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.0

The sheer volume of missed shots heavily outweighed his high-energy hustle plays. While he brought great intensity and generated extra possessions, forcing difficult looks in traffic consistently derailed the offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 26.6m -16.3
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 22.8m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.3

Becoming a complete offensive liability caused his rating to plummet. Defenders actively sagged off him to clog the paint, completely destroying the team's spacing and stalling out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 22.8m -13.9
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Amir Coffey 20.1m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Stagnant off-ball movement and failing to convert on standard rotation catch-and-shoot opportunities led to a negative grade. He struggled to find the rhythm of the game, often disrupting the offensive flow with hesitant decision-making.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 20.1m -12.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Defensive lapses at the point of attack couldn't be covered up by average offensive efficiency. Getting caught out of position on pick-and-rolls gave up easy driving lanes that compromised the team's overall defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 19.7m -12.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 16.8m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.2

Flawless rim-running and elite defensive rotations skyrocketed his impact score. Continuing a streak of highly efficient play, he suffocated the opponent at the rim and capitalized on every lob opportunity.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 16.8m -10.4
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Dominating the glass and providing immediate rim protection off the bench fueled a highly positive rating in limited minutes. His sheer physical presence altered multiple shots and secured critical extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 12.0m -7.3
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Koby Brea 7.8m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Perfectly executing his role as a floor-spacer caused a massive spike in his impact score during a short burst. Punishing defensive closeouts without hesitation provided an instant offensive jolt that maximized his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 7.8m -4.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Cason Wallace 26.2m
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.8

Impact cratered due to a severe lack of offensive rhythm and bricking multiple perimeter looks. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, which bogged down the spacing and stalled the offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 26.2m -16.2
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 23.7m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

A surprisingly negative total rating despite solid shooting efficiency points to severe off-ball defensive breakdowns. Getting consistently beat in transition and failing to secure the defensive glass allowed the opponent to feast on second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +33.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 23.7m -14.6
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 20.5m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Despite efficient finishing around the basket, the negative impact stems from poor rotational awareness that gave up high-value looks in the paint. His inability to string together stops during crucial stretches erased the value he provided on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 20.5m -12.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 19.6m
28
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.1

Offensive dominance drove the massive positive score, highlighted by near-perfect shot selection that punished defensive rotations. Breaking out of a recent slump, his ability to score at will without wasting possessions completely overwhelmed the opponent.

Shooting
FG 11/12 (91.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.6%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg +42.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +28.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 19.6m -12.1
Impact +18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.3

Flawless execution as a connective hub in the half-court offense elevated his overall rating. By finishing every look at the rim and facilitating out of the high post, he generated high-quality possessions without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +55.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 17.6m -10.8
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.7

Elite defensive positioning and active hands fueled a positive rating despite a rough night shooting from deep. Executing flawless rotations and anchoring the paint completely masked his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.6
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 28.2m -17.3
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

High-level defensive disruption and hustle plays kept his head above water despite a high volume of missed mid-range pull-ups. The aggressive shot profile yielded diminishing returns, but his relentless perimeter pressure prevented a negative slide.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 25.1m -15.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.4

A massive, unexpected scoring surge completely flipped his usual impact profile. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, his aggressive cuts and timely perimeter makes provided a crucial spark that swung the momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 23.0m -14.1
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 22.3m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Opportunistic scoring and surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense drove a solid positive impact. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions, turning defensive stops into efficient transition buckets.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 22.3m -13.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Isaiah Joe 18.1m
21
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Lethal floor spacing was the sole driver of this highly positive performance. Punishing drop coverage with a barrage of deep perimeter makes forced the defense to overextend, opening up the floor for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 18.1m -11.0
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Complete offensive invisibility during a brief stint rendered his minutes a net negative. Failing to attempt quality shots or generate any downhill pressure allowed the defense to rest while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +67.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 7.8m -4.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Forced perimeter shots in a short rotational window dragged down his overall rating. Settling for contested looks early in the shot clock wasted valuable possessions and handed momentum back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 7.8m -4.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0