GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
17
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.5

Completely terrorized the opponent's offensive game plan by erasing everything in the paint and altering countless perimeter trajectories. His otherworldly defensive metrics reflect a one-man zone that single-handedly suffocated driving lanes. Even with a slight dip in his usual scoring dominance, his rim protection and high-motor hustle plays dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +17.2
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 24.8m -13.8
Impact +20.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 1
S Devin Vassell 22.7m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Efficient shot-making was completely undone by apathetic transition defense and poor screen navigation. He routinely lost his man off the ball, surrendering easy backdoor cuts that fueled opponent scoring runs. The scoring output was merely cosmetic compared to the defensive bleeding he caused.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 22.7m -12.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Embraced a pure 3-and-D role, rarely forcing the issue and keeping the ball moving within the offensive flow. His disciplined closeouts and ability to stay in front of drives provided a steadying defensive presence. While the offensive volume was muted, his mistake-free approach yielded a marginally positive net result.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 22.4m -12.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 21.9m
15
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.5

Dictated the tempo beautifully in the half-court, using his elite burst to collapse the defense and spray passes to open shooters. A few careless turnovers in traffic slightly suppressed his overall rating. However, his ability to consistently generate high-quality looks for others kept his team in the driver's seat.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 21.9m -12.2
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 21.1m
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.5

Punctured the defense at will with decisive, downhill drives that yielded spectacular efficiency. His relentless point-of-attack pressure and knack for securing loose balls generated crucial extra possessions. This blend of elite shot selection and high-energy defensive disruption resulted in a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +50.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 21.1m -11.8
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Dylan Harper 25.9m
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Scorched the nets with impressive shot-making, but his overall impact was dragged down by getting repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll coverage. He struggled to fight through screens, forcing teammates into disadvantageous rotation scenarios. The offensive brilliance simply couldn't outpace the defensive bleeding he caused on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 25.9m -14.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided a stabilizing, albeit quiet, veteran presence by making the right connective passes and avoiding costly mistakes. His shot selection was slightly perimeter-heavy, leading to empty trips when the jumpers didn't fall. Ultimately, his disciplined positional defense was just enough to keep his overall impact above water.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +43.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 20.3m -11.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Bogged down the offense with predictable, straight-line drives that were easily swallowed up by help defenders. His lack of off-ball awareness and failure to contest shooters on the perimeter compounded his struggles. This combination of forced attempts and low-energy defense severely damaged the team's efficiency during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +46.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 20.2m -11.2
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kornet 16.1m
10
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.4

Put on an absolute clinic in rim-running and vertical spacing, converting every single offensive opportunity with flawless execution. His astronomical hustle metrics reflect a relentless effort to keep plays alive through tip-outs and contested rebounds. Anchoring the drop coverage perfectly, he deterred countless drives to round out a spectacularly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 16.1m -9.0
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Flashed intriguing potential with confident perimeter strokes, but erratic defensive positioning neutralized his scoring contributions. He frequently bit on pump fakes, compromising the team's defensive shell and leading to easy layups. The resulting defensive breakdowns edged his overall rating slightly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 15.6m -8.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Completely eschewed offensive touches to focus entirely on setting bone-crushing screens and protecting the paint. His massive hustle rating highlights a short but violent stint of altering shots and securing contested loose balls. This pure enforcer role provided a massive jolt of defensive energy that swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 9.7m -5.4
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Short-circuited multiple offensive sets by bricking wide-open perimeter looks and forcing wild floaters in the lane. While he applied decent ball pressure on the defensive end, it wasn't enough to offset the empty offensive possessions. His inability to punish defenders for going under screens severely cramped the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 9.7m -5.4
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Wandered the perimeter without ever establishing a physical presence or looking to attack offensive mismatches. His reluctance to shoot or initiate contact allowed the defense to effectively play five-on-four. A lack of meaningful rim protection further exacerbated a highly ineffective stretch of basketball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 9.7m -5.4
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
8
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-9.2

A heavy diet of clanked perimeter jumpers and forced floaters cratered his overall value. While he mapped the floor well to generate open looks for teammates, the sheer volume of wasted possessions on his own attempts was too costly. His inability to punish drop coverage allowed the defense to constantly cheat into the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 29.7m -16.6
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 26.5m
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Passive off-ball movement and an inability to generate secondary defensive events severely dragged down his overall rating. He settled for contested spot-ups rather than attacking closeouts, limiting his offensive gravity. A lack of hustle plays in transition further highlighted a low-energy outing that hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 26.5m -14.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Green 26.2m
26
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless rim pressure and confident perimeter execution forced defensive rotations all night. His overall impact was bolstered by surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense that disrupted opposing ball handlers. Despite a few forced attempts in isolation, his two-way aggression firmly set a winning tone.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 36.6%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 26.2m -14.6
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mark Williams 22.7m
11
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact at the rim prevented a monster statistical night. However, his sheer physical presence in the paint and high-motor offensive rebounding kept his impact firmly in the green. He anchored the interior effectively by altering multiple driving angles when guards broke the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -36.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 22.7m -12.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Devin Booker 8.8m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

An abbreviated shift was marred by rushed perimeter attempts and an inability to find his usual midrange rhythm. Zero hustle contributions and stagnant off-ball positioning resulted in a steep negative rating during his brief floor time. The offense completely stalled out during his short stint as he failed to draw his customary defensive attention.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 8.8m -4.9
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Settling for low-percentage outside shots rather than utilizing his size to attack the paint ruined his offensive efficiency. The defensive metrics reflect a step slow on closeouts, routinely allowing clean catch-and-shoot opportunities. This poor shot selection bailed out the opposing defense during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 27.3m -15.2
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 21.5m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Complete offensive passivity allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the driving lanes for others. He provided solid weak-side rim protection to salvage some value on the other end of the floor. Ultimately, his reluctance to look at the basket created a spacing nightmare that dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 21.5m -12.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Active hands and relentless screen navigation generated solid defensive value on the perimeter. Unfortunately, erratic decision-making in transition and a few forced attempts at the rim negated his hard work on the other end. His high-energy approach was ultimately overshadowed by a lack of offensive polish.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 18.2m -10.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 17.7m
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.5

Masterful operation out of the short roll consistently compromised the opposing defensive shell. His quick decision-making and highly efficient interior finishing sustained a productive offensive rhythm. Defensively, his lateral mobility on switches prevented mismatches and fueled a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 17.7m -9.8
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game, often forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. While he showed flashes of competent positional defense, his offensive impatience stalled out several half-court possessions. The inability to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 12.0m -6.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Amir Coffey 11.8m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Essentially ran empty miles during his rotation minutes, failing to leave any imprint on either side of the ball. His hesitation to shoot when left open actively disrupted the offensive flow and forced late-clock bailouts. A lack of defensive disruption further cemented a highly detrimental stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 11.8m -6.6
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Failed to register any meaningful defensive stops or hustle plays during his brief time on the court. His total lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to completely ignore him on the perimeter. This ghost-like presence forced teammates to play four-on-five basketball, bleeding efficiency in the process.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 10.0m -5.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Dominated the glass during a very short burst, using his massive wingspan to secure extra possessions. His touch around the basket was lacking, resulting in blown point-blank finishes that capped his ceiling. Still, his sheer size altered enough shots to sneak his overall impact into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 7.6m -4.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2