GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Isaiah Collier 36.1m
15
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-9.2

A brutal lack of scoring efficiency and likely high turnover rate decimated his net impact, despite impressive playmaking numbers. Driving into traffic repeatedly resulted in empty possessions or transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to keep the defense honest with his own shot clogged the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 36.1m -21.0
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
28
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Scorching hot shooting from the perimeter fueled a heavy offensive burden, stretching the defense past its breaking point. His constant off-ball movement generated a stellar hustle rating that translated directly into second-chance opportunities. This high-volume scoring barrage carried the second unit through multiple stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +7.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 35.5m -20.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 34.7m
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

Poor perimeter efficiency and likely turnover woes undermined a game where he otherwise competed hard defensively. Settling for contested long-range jumpers short-circuited several promising offensive possessions. His inability to finish through contact negated his solid defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 34.7m -20.3
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyle Filipowski 29.6m
15
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.3

Elite defensive positioning anchored the frontcourt, more than making up for a slight dip in his usual scoring dominance. He consistently disrupted pick-and-roll actions, forcing ball-handlers into tough, contested floaters. Continuing his streak of highly efficient shooting, he picked his spots perfectly within the flow of the offense.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +13.5
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 29.6m -17.2
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 24.7m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

A sharp drop in scoring aggression left the offense searching for answers, as he repeatedly passed up open looks. While his defensive metrics remained respectable, his hesitancy to attack the basket allowed defenders to cheat off him. This passive approach severely cramped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 24.7m -14.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
John Konchar 25.1m
6
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Gritty defensive rebounding and timely weak-side rotations defined a highly impactful glue-guy performance. He didn't need to score to control the game, instead using his physicality to deny entry passes and secure loose balls. A textbook example of how to influence winning without dominating the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.9
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 25.1m -14.7
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
Blake Hinson 24.8m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Disastrous defensive execution and a cooling off from his recent hot streak resulted in a heavily negative overall impact. Opponents aggressively targeted him in isolation, exposing his slow lateral movement. While he hit a few deep shots, he gave back significantly more points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 24.8m -14.4
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Lethal catch-and-shoot execution punished defensive rotations, continuing his trend of hyper-efficient floor spacing. His quick trigger from deep forced closeouts that opened up driving lanes for teammates. Solid positional defense ensured his offensive contributions weren't wasted.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 17.5m -10.3
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Efficient finishing in transition wasn't quite enough to overcome slight defensive miscommunications during his short stint. He capitalized on his few offensive touches but struggled to navigate screens on the other end. A largely neutral shift that neither helped nor hurt the overall game plan.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 7.2m -4.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Managed to stay slightly positive through quick ball movement and setting solid screens during a very brief cameo. His streak of efficient scoring ended simply due to a lack of minutes and touches. He operated purely as a connective piece in his limited run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +88.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 5.0m -3.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jrue Holiday 33.0m
31
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+16.5

Masterful offensive execution drove a stellar box score impact, as he picked apart defensive coverages with surgical precision. Stepping up his scoring volume significantly above his recent average, he capitalized on mismatches in the mid-range. His steadying presence during crucial offensive sets ensured high-quality looks every time down the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +32.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +35.7
Avg player in 33.0m -19.2
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 32.8m
18
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc cratered his offensive efficiency, negating a relatively sturdy defensive effort. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock repeatedly stalled the team's momentum. His inability to find a rhythm effectively handed the opponent extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 32.8m -19.3
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 31.4m
23
pts
18
reb
7
ast
Impact
+26.0

Utterly dominated the interior, anchoring a massive defensive rating while exploding for an uncharacteristic offensive surge. His sheer size neutralized opposing drivers, creating a wall at the rim that fueled fast breaks. This breakout performance showcased a sudden, aggressive post-up game that the defense simply could not solve.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +29.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.9
Raw total +44.2
Avg player in 31.4m -18.2
Impact +26.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Sidy Cissoko 30.0m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Massive hustle metrics completely flipped his usual baseline, driving a surprisingly positive impact despite limited touches. His sudden scoring burst provided unexpected secondary offense that kept the defense honest. Relentless off-ball movement and loose-ball recoveries defined his floor-spacing value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +11.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 30.0m -17.4
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Toumani Camara 29.0m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Despite solid perimeter shooting and active hands, defensive lapses or hidden negative plays dragged his overall impact slightly below neutral. He struggled to replicate his recent scoring rhythm, settling for shots that allowed the defense to set up. A failure to capitalize on transition opportunities ultimately muted his otherwise solid hustle numbers.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +6.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 29.0m -16.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Perimeter shooting provided a spark, but defensive rotations were frequently a step slow, bleeding points on the other end. He found success spotting up, yet struggled to contain dribble penetration when isolated. The resulting defensive breakdowns offset the value of his offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 25.5m -14.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

Hidden mistakes and likely turnover issues tanked his overall impact despite decent shooting splits. He struggled to orchestrate the half-court offense, leading to stagnant possessions and forced actions. A lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 20.1m -11.7
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
Rayan Rupert 15.7m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Offensive invisibility severely limited his usefulness, as he failed to punish defenders who sagged off him. While his length contributed to decent hustle and defensive metrics, the complete lack of scoring gravity allowed opponents to double-team elsewhere. He essentially operated as an offensive liability during his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 15.7m -9.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Caleb Love 14.7m
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

A massive spike in scoring aggression yielded mixed results, as high-volume, low-efficiency shooting dragged down his overall net rating. While he hit a few timely deep balls, the sheer number of empty possessions hurt the team's offensive rhythm. His tunnel vision on offense prevented better looks for teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 14.7m -8.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Completely ineffective in limited action, failing to generate any positive momentum on either end. Rushed his only shot attempts and offered zero resistance defensively. This brief, empty stint actively hurt the team's transition defense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -171.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 3.9m -2.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Barely registered an impact during a brief stint, looking out of sync with the offensive flow. A quick missed shot and lack of defensive presence highlighted a forgettable appearance. He failed to establish any physical leverage in the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -104.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Garbage time minutes yielded nothing of substance, with a slight defensive negative marking his only statistical footprint. He simply ran the floor without engaging in the play. A true non-factor in every sense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0