GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 37.8m
40
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

An explosive scoring barrage masked some defensive inconsistencies to yield a strong positive rating. He relentlessly attacked drop coverage, using his burst to generate high-value looks at the rim and beyond the arc. This aggressive shot profile single-handedly carried the offense during crucial stretches, overcoming the sheer volume of his attempts.

Shooting
FG 16/30 (53.3%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 37.8m -21.6
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaden McDaniels 34.1m
7
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-17.7

An abysmal offensive showing (-17.7 Total) completely negated his typically strong perimeter defense. He short-circuited multiple possessions by forcing contested drives into heavy traffic instead of moving the ball. Despite high-level hustle metrics, his inability to convert quality looks cratered the team's spacing and momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense -9.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 34.1m -19.6
Impact -17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S Rudy Gobert 32.4m
22
pts
17
reb
1
ast
Impact
+25.0

Absolute dominance in the paint (+12.3 Def) dictated the terms of the entire game. He swallowed up drivers at the rim and generated massive value through elite screen assists and put-backs. Breaking out of a quiet scoring stretch, his lob-threat gravity completely warped the opposing defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +12.3
Raw total +43.5
Avg player in 32.4m -18.5
Impact +25.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
9
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.0

Exceptional ball movement and connective passing drove a highly efficient performance. He thrived as a secondary creator, consistently making the extra read to punish defensive rotations. High-level hustle (+6.5) and opportunistic off-ball defense perfectly complemented his low-mistake offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +6.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 30.5m -17.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 28.9m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.8

Ball-stopping tendencies and a massive volume of missed shots severely damaged the offensive flow. He repeatedly settled for contested, isolation mid-range jumpers against set defenses, bailing out the opponent. A lack of defensive intensity or transition hustle compounded the damage from his highly inefficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 28.9m -16.5
Impact -13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Naz Reid 30.5m
21
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.5

Floor-stretching capability from the frontcourt pulled opposing bigs away from the basket, opening up driving lanes. He capitalized on favorable matchups by decisively attacking closeouts and finishing with touch. This offensive versatility, combined with solid weak-side rim protection, provided a massive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 30.5m -17.4
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 27.0m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.0

A stark regression from his recent form, defined by an inability to finish through contact at the rim. He disrupted the offensive rhythm by driving into crowded paint areas and failing to kick the ball out. The resulting empty possessions allowed the opponent to leak out in transition, driving his deeply negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 27.0m -15.4
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 14.6m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack outweighed a relatively quiet offensive stint. Opposing guards easily navigated around him on the perimeter, forcing the defense into constant rotation. Without his usual scoring punch to compensate, his minutes resulted in a net loss for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 14.6m -8.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.5

Maximum effort in a microscopic window yielded an incredibly dense positive impact (+5.5 Total). He immediately blew up a pick-and-roll action and secured hard-fought positioning inside. This hyper-efficient burst of defensive energy and hustle completely swung momentum during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 4.2m -2.4
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 36.3m
12
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

A brutal shooting night cratered his overall impact despite solid defensive metrics. He forced contested looks in the paint against heavy coverage, stalling the half-court offense. While his switchability on the perimeter provided some value, the sheer volume of wasted possessions dragged the team down.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 36.3m -20.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Naji Marshall 33.2m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Offensive inefficiency heavily outweighed a highly disruptive defensive effort (+8.7 Def). He consistently settled for low-quality perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum. His relentless hustle and on-ball pressure couldn't salvage a net-negative rating driven by empty shooting trips.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.7
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 33.2m -18.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 30.4m
18
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.1

Breaking out of a brutal five-game slump, his aggressive perimeter defense (+7.8 Def) completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. He found his spots in the midrange to stabilize the offense while generating crucial stops with active hands. This two-way resurgence drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 30.4m -17.4
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tyus Jones 26.1m
13
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.0

Masterful offensive orchestration sparked a massive turnaround from his recent shooting woes. He consistently manipulated the pick-and-roll coverage to generate high-percentage looks for his teammates. This clean, mistake-free floor generalship drove a strong positive impact, even with minimal defensive resistance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 26.1m -14.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 23.7m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Elite rim protection (+10.2 Def) anchored the interior and heavily deterred drives into the paint. Though his offensive usage dropped significantly compared to recent games, his vertical spacing and screen-setting remained highly effective. He dominated his specific frontcourt matchup by altering shots and securing extra possessions through pure hustle.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +10.2
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 23.7m -13.5
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Poor shot selection and an inability to shake tight coverage resulted in a severely negative overall impact. He forced contested looks off movement rather than letting the offense flow, leading to empty possessions. A lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption meant he offered little value when the perimeter shots weren't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 27.9m -15.9
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.0

Relentless positioning around the basket fueled a dominant overall rating (+14.0). He exploited a favorable frontcourt matchup by sealing defenders early and finishing cleanly through contact. His interior gravity opened up the perimeter, making him a highly efficient focal point during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 24.3m -14.0
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.5

Defensive lapses and a lack of off-ball engagement dragged his net score into the red. While he found some success attacking closeouts, he struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. Opponents repeatedly targeted him in isolation, neutralizing any offensive contributions he managed.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 18.4m -10.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Caleb Martin 14.8m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

A low-usage stint was defined by steady rotational defense (+4.2 Def) rather than offensive output. He stayed glued to his assignments and provided timely help-side contests, though his reluctance to look for his own shot limited his overall influence. Ultimately, he played to a near-neutral draw by simply avoiding mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -52.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 14.8m -8.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Johnson 4.8m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A brief, ineffective stint was marred by a complete lack of defensive presence. He failed to register any hustle stats or defensive impact, allowing opponents to score freely during his minutes. The game moved too fast for him in this short window, resulting in a quick negative swing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 4.8m -2.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1