GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Isaiah Joe 28.9m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Lethal off-ball movement and quick-trigger perimeter shooting warped the opposing defense's entire scheme. His ability to punish late closeouts created a steady stream of high-value possessions that kept his overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 28.9m -15.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 28.5m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Bricklaying from beyond the arc severely punished the offense, completely negating his typically strong hustle metrics (+4.7). Opponents sagged off him entirely, clogging the paint and stalling out half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 28.5m -15.4
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cason Wallace 28.4m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Phenomenal point-of-attack harassment (+5.7) and elite hustle metrics were tragically wasted by an abysmal offensive showing. Continually short-circuiting possessions with clunky finishes at the rim ultimately sank his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +6.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 28.4m -15.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 27.5m
16
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.4

Elite rim deterrence (+8.9) and phenomenal defensive rebounding completely overshadowed a cold night from the perimeter. He dictated the terms of engagement in the paint, erasing opponent drives and instantly igniting transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.9
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 27.5m -14.9
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite providing a noticeable spark on the offensive glass, his struggles to finish through contact inside dragged his rating down. The gritty defensive effort wasn't quite enough to overcome the empty possessions he generated in the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 22.7m -12.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jared McCain 24.1m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Bleeding points on the defensive end (-0.4) and forcing heavily contested looks completely tanked his overall impact. The rookie's shot selection was highly questionable, repeatedly bailing out the defense early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 24.1m -13.0
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Stagnant offensive positioning and a failure to capitalize on driving lanes resulted in a surprisingly deep negative rating (-6.4). While his perimeter defense remained solid, his inability to bend the defense on the other end stalled out multiple lineup combinations.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 20.2m -11.0
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Alex Caruso 19.6m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Wreaking absolute havoc in the passing lanes fueled a superb two-way performance. Pairing elite defensive disruption (+5.2) with timely spot-up shooting perfectly maximized his value as a low-usage connector.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 19.6m -10.7
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

A massive infusion of energy and elite hustle (+6.8) defined this highly productive reserve stint. Drawing charges and keeping the ball moving offensively created a highly efficient environment whenever he stepped on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -59.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +6.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 15.8m -8.6
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Looking entirely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, his brief stint resulted in a catastrophic rating plunge (-10.0). Hesitant decision-making and an inability to generate dribble penetration crippled the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 12.4m -6.7
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Finding ways to contribute without scoring, his aggressive rebounding and stout defensive positioning (+3.3) kept his head above water. He embraced a pure dirty-work role to salvage a positive impact during his short run.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 7.3m -3.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

An incredibly hyperactive four-minute cameo yielded massive hustle metrics (+4.0) that dramatically spiked his impact score. Sprinting through screens and providing instant spacing completely energized the lineup during his brief deployment.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 4.6m -2.5
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 38.0m
17
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Relentless perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, keeping his overall impact positive despite overall shooting inconsistencies. His willingness to hunt catch-and-shoot opportunities from deep stretched the opposing defense past its breaking point.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 38.0m -20.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ousmane Dieng 36.5m
19
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.1

Elite defensive metrics (+9.8) and highly efficient perimeter scoring drove a massive positive swing for the young forward. Breaking out of his recent shooting slump, his ability to space the floor while anchoring the defensive glass created constant mismatch advantages.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +9.8
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 36.5m -19.7
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.5

Strong point-of-attack defensive metrics (+7.9) were entirely neutralized by erratic offensive decision-making. Clunky isolation attempts and missed mid-range looks prevented him from capitalizing on his high-effort defensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 31.6m -17.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Kuzma 28.7m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

A high volume of empty possessions and forced jumpers dragged his overall impact into the red (-0.9) despite decent base production. His tendency to settle for contested looks derailed offensive momentum during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 28.7m -15.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jericho Sims 19.9m
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Complete invisibility on the margins tanked his overall rating despite efficient finishing around the rim. Failing to generate meaningful hustle plays or defensive disruptions allowed opponents to exploit his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 19.9m -10.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Bobby Portis 29.1m
15
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.1

Dominant interior positioning and elite defensive anchoring (+13.2) resulted in a massive overall rating. He completely controlled the painted area, pairing physical rim protection with timely floor-spacing to overwhelm his matchups.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +13.2
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 29.1m -15.7
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 24.0m
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Capitalizing on limited touches, his highly efficient perimeter stroke provided a crucial offensive spark. Solid rotational awareness on the defensive end (+4.5) ensured his minutes were a net positive for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 24.0m -13.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Cam Thomas 20.0m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

A severe lack of secondary contributions cratered his value, as he offered virtually zero defensive resistance or hustle (+0.2). Forcing contested perimeter looks rather than moving the ball compounded the damage during his stint.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 20.0m -10.9
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Brief rotational minutes yielded a slightly positive rating due to mistake-free execution. He stayed within his role, securing a few loose balls without forcing the issue offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 6.0m -3.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

An abysmal three-minute stint featured multiple forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that instantly killed offensive flow. Producing zero defensive or hustle stats further highlighted a completely hollow cameo appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Brought in strictly for energy, his frantic closeouts generated a minor hustle bump but disrupted the team's defensive shell. The lack of offensive involvement kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0