GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 31.0m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

Showcased smooth shot-making from the perimeter, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns to find clean looks. However, a lack of defensive resistance and peripheral playmaking kept his net impact from matching his scoring efficiency. His shift was characterized by trading baskets rather than stringing together stops.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 31.0m -16.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Isaiah Collier 26.6m
12
pts
1
reb
14
ast
Impact
-1.3

A dazzling display of playmaking was ultimately undercut by defensive lapses and likely a high volume of live-ball turnovers. While he orchestrated the offense beautifully in the half-court, the negative total suggests he gave up nearly as much value in transition defense. His aggressive passing angles created highlight reels but also fueled opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +43.1
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 26.6m -14.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jusuf Nurkić 26.1m
8
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.5

Struggled to navigate defensive coverages in space, likely bleeding value in pick-and-roll situations to tank his overall impact. While he converted his limited looks around the basket, a lack of mobility allowed guards to target him repeatedly. The drop coverage scheme he anchored was systematically dismantled, negating his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 26.1m -13.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.5

Imposed his will on the interior with highly efficient finishing and intimidating rim protection. His ability to convert cleanly in the paint while simultaneously anchoring the defense resulted in a stellar two-way impact score. He completely neutralized the opponent's frontcourt during a crucial second-half run.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +50.4
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 22.2m -11.8
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Lauri Markkanen 20.6m
19
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.8

Operated as an unstoppable offensive fulcrum, using his size to shoot over closeouts and finish efficiently inside the arc. His gravity as a scorer opened up the floor for teammates, driving a massive positive net rating despite a quiet night from deep. A dominant stretch of mismatch hunting in the mid-post defined his highly impactful shift.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg +36.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 20.6m -10.9
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.9

Put on an absolute defensive clinic, completely shutting down his primary matchup and blowing up multiple offensive sets. His elite defensive rating was paired with opportunistic, highly efficient scoring that didn't demand the ball. A masterclass in two-way role-playing where every single action contributed to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +10.7
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 25.1m -13.5
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Poured in buckets with a smooth offensive rhythm, but defensive apathy completely erased his scoring contributions. Opponents actively targeted him on the other end, turning his minutes into a shootout that slightly favored the opposition. His tunnel vision on offense also meant the ball stuck, stagnating the broader team flow.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 24.1m -12.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.8

Provided a crucial spark as a 3-and-D connector, hitting timely perimeter shots to punish collapsing defenses. His disciplined closeouts and rotational awareness stabilized the defensive unit during his minutes. Thrived by playing strictly within himself, taking only high-value shots and executing the defensive scheme flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 21.4m -11.5
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
John Konchar 19.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

An absolute non-factor offensively, failing to convert a single field goal attempt and allowing his defender to act as a free safety. Despite decent hustle metrics, his offensive invisibility completely wrecked the team's spacing and bogged down half-court execution. The severe drop-off from his recent production left a glaring hole in the second unit's scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 19.2m -10.3
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Kevin Love 15.7m
5
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Looked a step slow in defensive rotations, allowing easy penetration that compromised the entire defensive shell. While he secured the defensive glass effectively, his inability to stretch the floor consistently or guard in space made him a net negative. The opposing offense clearly game-planned to attack his lack of lateral quickness.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +62.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 15.7m -8.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

A brutally ineffective short stint saw him completely outmatched physically, leading to a rapid accumulation of negative impact. Snapping a hot streak of efficient scoring, he looked entirely out of sync and was quickly pulled from the rotation. Defensive miscommunications and forced offensive actions defined a highly detrimental stretch of play.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 41.2%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 8.2m -4.3
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 38.2m
6
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.3

An abysmal shooting display completely cratered his value, erasing what was otherwise a stellar defensive shift. Bricking nearly every attempt from the floor essentially handed the opponent empty possessions and fueled transition opportunities. His relentless perimeter defense and hustle plays couldn't stop the bleeding caused by his offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 1/15 (6.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 38.2m -20.4
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Carter 29.8m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Aggressive shot-hunting yielded a scoring bump but came at a steep cost to overall offensive efficiency. Clanking a multitude of three-pointers and forcing drives into traffic resulted in empty trips that dragged his net impact into the red. Despite decent activity levels on defense, his poor shot selection repeatedly bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.0%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 29.8m -15.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S DeMar DeRozan 29.5m
20
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Scoring volume masked a highly inefficient shooting night that actively harmed the offense's rhythm. Heavy reliance on contested mid-range looks resulted in a barrage of missed jumpers, dragging a strong base output into the negative. His inability to generate clean perimeter looks stalled out crucial half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 29.5m -15.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 27.6m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Struggled to find a rhythm within the offensive flow, leading to a noticeable drop-off from his recent scoring tear. While he offered solid resistance on the defensive block, offensive stagnation and likely spacing issues tanked his overall net impact. The inability to stretch the floor or finish cleanly inside allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.6m -14.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Maintained a slight positive impact through disciplined defensive rotations and active rim protection rather than scoring. Snapped a streak of high-volume offensive games by taking a back seat, serving primarily as a screener and garbage-man. His defensive positioning saved multiple possessions when the primary point-of-attack defense failed.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 16.1m -8.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

Perimeter shooting woes severely limited his effectiveness, as he bricked a high volume of attempts from deep and disrupted the team's spacing. He tried to compensate with high-energy hustle plays and crashing the glass, but the offensive inefficiency was too much to overcome. The opposing defense actively dared him to shoot, and his willingness to settle played right into their hands.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 32.8m -17.4
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Dominated the dirty work with exceptional hustle metrics, constantly keeping plays alive through sheer physical effort. However, limited offensive utility and a few missed bunnies around the rim kept him just below the break-even mark for impact. His relentless rebounding activity set a physical tone, even if it didn't translate to a positive bottom line.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 26.9m -14.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Provided steady point-of-attack defense but struggled to assert himself as a primary initiator during his minutes. A lack of overall aggression kept his offensive footprint minimal, preventing him from tipping the scales into a positive net impact. His shift was defined by passive ball-swinging rather than dynamic playmaking.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 20.3m -10.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.1

Elite floor-spacing fundamentally altered the geometry of the court, punishing the defense for every late rotation. Knocking down a barrage of perimeter shots provided a massive jolt to the offense and drove a highly positive net rating. Surprisingly stout positional defense ensured he didn't give back the value he created on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 18.9m -10.1
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1