GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
28
pts
15
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.1

Total structural dominance on both ends of the floor anchored this masterpiece of a performance. His sheer length deterred countless drives to the paint (+10.3 Def), while his unstoppable catch-and-finish radius around the basket completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.3
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 29.8m -18.2
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Settling for contested looks late in the shot clock severely damaged his offensive efficiency. While his weak-side defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, the sheer volume of empty perimeter possessions gave the opponent too many transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 27.6m -16.9
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 27.2m
18
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.9

Despite slicing through the primary line of defense with ease, his overall impact cratered due to defensive miscommunications in transition. The scoring surge was ultimately undone by giving up too many high-value angles on the other end of the floor during fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 27.2m -16.6
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Stephon Castle 24.5m
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

Methodical rim pressure and elite body control allowed him to generate high-quality looks at will. His relentless point-of-attack defense and loose-ball recovery (+4.7 Hustle) set a physical tone that the opposing backcourt simply could not match.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 24.5m -14.9
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 23.8m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Struggled to find his typical rhythm within the offensive flow, passing up several driving lanes he normally attacks. The resulting drop in scoring gravity bogged down the perimeter spacing, leading to a surprisingly steep negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 23.8m -14.5
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Dylan Harper 23.1m
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.1

A lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to easily break the paint, sinking his overall value. While his offensive touch remained silky, his inability to fight through screens gave back every point he generated.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.1m -14.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Punishing defensive breakdowns with timely corner triples sparked a much-needed offensive resurgence. His veteran savvy in finding soft spots in the zone provided a reliable safety valve, perfectly complementing the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 20.9m -12.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Bully-ball drives and confident catch-and-shoot mechanics kept the scoreboard ticking, but his defensive lapses negated the production. Late closeouts and missed rotations on the wing allowed the opposition to trade baskets, resulting in a flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 20.8m -12.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kornet 12.8m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.8

Vertical spacing and impeccable drop-coverage positioning fueled a massive positive swing during his short shift. He completely neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll game by walling off the paint without committing unnecessary fouls.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 12.8m -7.7
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Blown coverages and a complete lack of physical engagement (-1.2 Def) turned his minutes into a runway for the opponent. Forcing contested jumpers early in the clock only compounded the damage, leading to a catastrophic net rating in a very short window.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -52.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense -2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -3.8
Avg player in 10.7m -6.6
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Sluggish footwork in space made him a prime target for isolation attacks during his brief rotation. Even with a couple of crafty finishes inside, his inability to protect the rim or close out on shooters resulted in a net negative stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 5.5m -3.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A completely passive approach to initiating the offense resulted in dead-end possessions and stalled momentum. By failing to collapse the defense or even look at the rim, he allowed the opposition to comfortably jump passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 4.4m -2.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Active hands and disciplined closeouts provided a quick burst of defensive stability during his short run. He stayed within his role, taking only what the defense gave him while ensuring no easy angles were surrendered.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 4.4m -2.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Filled his lane adequately during garbage time without forcing the issue or making glaring mistakes. A quick backcut for an easy finish highlighted a brief, perfectly neutral stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 4.4m -2.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 35.8m
20
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite generating tremendous value through loose ball recoveries and defensive rotations (+6.3 Hustle), his overall impact slipped into the red. A heavy diet of contested perimeter looks resulted in six missed triples, stalling the offensive rhythm during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 35.8m -21.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 34.7m
20
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.8

Midrange isolation sets bogged down the offensive flow, as a high volume of contested pull-ups failed to convert at his usual rate. While his defensive rotations were surprisingly sharp (+4.7 Def), the empty possessions on the other end ultimately dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 34.7m -21.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Maxime Raynaud 26.3m
16
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Relentless positioning on the interior drove a massive box-score footprint, even as his recent streak of hyper-efficient shooting finally cooled off. By generating second-chance opportunities and dominating the paint physically, he forced the defense to collapse inward all night.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 26.3m -16.1
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.9

Erratic decision-making in transition and forced perimeter attempts severely handicapped the offensive execution. The massive negative swing in his overall impact (-14.9) stems directly from empty possessions and momentum-killing shot selection early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -6.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 21.3m -13.0
Impact -14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

Continuing a dominant streak of interior finishing, he capitalized on high-percentage looks around the rim to maintain his elite efficiency. His disciplined shot selection anchored the second unit's offense and kept the floor spaced with a perfectly timed perimeter make.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 21.1m -12.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Defensive menace and high-motor plays defined his time on the floor, completely disrupting the opponent's perimeter sets. However, his inability to connect from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off, neutralizing much of the value he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 29.8m -18.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 27.9m
19
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.7

Aggressive downhill attacks and a willingness to let it fly from deep kept the defense constantly backpedaling. Even with a handful of forced perimeter misses, his off-ball movement and secondary playmaking provided a necessary spark to the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 27.9m -17.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

A shocking lack of offensive involvement tanked his overall value, as he completely vanished from the scoring column compared to his recent hot streak. He remained engaged as an on-ball defender, but his passivity on the wing allowed the defense to trap elsewhere without consequence.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 17.9m -10.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Drew Eubanks 14.4m
6
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.9

Operating as an elite screen-setter, his physical presence in the pick-and-roll opened up driving lanes for the guards. He maximized his short stint by contesting everything at the rim and securing crucial extra possessions through pure effort.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 14.4m -8.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Barely registered a pulse during his brief rotational stint, failing to attempt a single shot or pressure the rim. This complete lack of offensive gravity let the opposing second unit dictate the tempo without any resistance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 5.5m -3.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Instant offense off the bench doesn't get much more efficient than this perfectly executed cameo. By immediately spacing the floor and punishing late closeouts from deep, he engineered a massive momentum swing in just five minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +68.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 5.3m -3.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0