GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Cason Wallace 29.5m
8
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
0.0

An icy shooting night from the perimeter threatened to ruin his impact profile entirely. He managed to claw his way back to a neutral rating by being an absolute menace in passing lanes and generating extra possessions through sheer hustle.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +7.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 29.5m -14.3
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Luguentz Dort 28.8m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Trigger-happy tendencies from beyond the arc resulted in several wasted possessions that hurt the team's offensive flow. His physical point-of-attack defense provided its usual baseline of value, but the clunky shot selection ultimately dragged his score into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 28.8m -14.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Aaron Wiggins 27.9m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

A sudden regression in shot-making snapped a highly efficient stretch, dragging his overall rating into negative territory. While his on-ball defensive pressure remained intact, the sheer number of clanked mid-range pull-ups stalled out several offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 27.9m -13.5
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 25.9m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite pristine shooting splits, a surprisingly low volume of field goal attempts limited his overall offensive footprint. Opposing bigs successfully pushed him out of his preferred spots, muting his usual rim-protecting gravity and keeping his net score slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.6%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 25.9m -12.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.8

Masterful positioning around the basket and elite screen-setting anchored a dominant statistical showing. He completely controlled the interior through physical box-outs and timely rim-runs, generating massive value without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +6.8
Defense +8.4
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 24.2m -11.7
Impact +18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Jared McCain 22.7m
21
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.9

An unexpected offensive explosion completely tilted the game, driven by supreme confidence on catch-and-shoot opportunities. By punishing defensive lapses with blistering perimeter efficiency, he generated a massive positive swing in his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.4
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 22.7m -11.0
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 21.7m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

Lethal floor-spacing gravity opened up the paint for his teammates, compounding the value of his own efficient shot-making. He paired this offensive spark with disciplined closeouts on the perimeter to post a stellar two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 21.7m -10.5
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

Smart, connective passing and timely spacing from the top of the key kept the offense humming during his shifts. He maximized his floor time by taking only high-value shots and executing defensive rotations flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 18.4m -8.9
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Opportunistic cuts to the basket provided a minor scoring boost compared to his recent slump. However, a lack of secondary playmaking and minimal impact on the glass left his overall footprint perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 14.7m -7.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Flashes of brilliant downhill penetration resulted in a highly efficient scoring burst off the bench. Unfortunately, defensive miscommunications and struggles navigating screens gave back those points on the other end, resulting in a slight negative rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +45.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 11.4m -5.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Alex Caruso 10.8m
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Blanking completely from the field severely hampered the second unit's offensive rhythm. While his trademark defensive instincts were still present, the string of empty shooting possessions proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +49.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 10.8m -5.3
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Brief garbage-time minutes limited any meaningful statistical accumulation. He stayed within the defensive scheme and avoided any glaring mistakes during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 2.0m -0.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A quick cameo at the end of the rotation yielded a surprisingly negative score due to immediate defensive breakdowns. Opponents successfully targeted him in space during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.0m -0.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
22
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.4

Despite a brutal shooting night from beyond the arc, his defensive engagement kept his overall impact in the green. The sheer volume of missed perimeter looks capped his ceiling, but timely rotations and steady rebounding offset the poor efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 37.8m -18.3
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 28.4m
3
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Offensive impact cratered due to a disastrous shot-selection profile heavily skewed toward contested threes. The resulting empty possessions completely overshadowed a surprisingly stout defensive effort where he consistently stayed in front of his man.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 15.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 28.4m -13.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Day'Ron Sharpe 27.1m
12
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Absolute dominance in the paint and elite hustle metrics fueled a massive positive impact. By strictly hunting high-percentage looks around the rim and generating second-chance opportunities, he maximized his minutes without wasting possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +7.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 27.1m -13.1
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nolan Traore 26.9m
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

A sudden surge in downhill aggression yielded a massive scoring spike compared to recent outings. Even with some erratic perimeter attempts, his point-of-attack defense provided enough stability to keep his net rating slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.1
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 26.9m -12.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Noah Clowney 26.5m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

A heavy dose of forced perimeter shots tanked his offensive value despite a noticeable uptick in scoring aggression. Relentless activity on the glass and deflections salvaged his defensive metrics, proving he can contribute even when his jumper is broken.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 26.5m -12.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Terance Mann 24.0m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Extreme passivity on the offensive end rendered him nearly invisible, severely limiting his overall value. He tried to compensate through high-energy closeouts and loose-ball recoveries, but the lack of scoring threat allowed the defense to ignore him.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +5.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 24.0m -11.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Danny Wolf 22.6m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Settling for low-quality looks from deep drained his offensive efficiency and pushed his overall impact into the red. He managed to carve out some value as a rim-deterrent, but the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 22.6m -10.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Drake Powell 20.2m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Floating through the game without asserting himself led to a plummeting net score. A complete inability to generate offensive gravity or disrupt passing lanes meant he was essentially a non-factor during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 20.2m -9.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jalen Wilson 15.7m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

A sharp drop in offensive involvement compared to his recent stretch left his impact hovering near neutral. He played within the flow of the offense and offered solid weak-side help, but simply didn't command enough touches to move the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 15.7m -7.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ochai Agbaji 10.9m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Forcing up contested jumpers in limited action quickly torpedoed his analytical profile. Without any secondary playmaking or defensive play-generation to fall back on, those empty shooting possessions proved highly destructive.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 10.9m -5.3
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2