GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 37.9m
26
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

A high volume of empty possessions and forced attacks into traffic ultimately dragged down his overall rating. While he carried a heavy offensive load, the missed perimeter shots and likely live-ball turnovers fueled opponent fast breaks. His scoring output masked the defensive compromises made to keep him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 37.9m -21.2
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
17
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.4

Tenacious on-ball pressure and disruptive defensive rotations completely overshadowed a highly inefficient shooting night. He generated essential stops by fighting through screens and contesting late in the shot clock. Even with the missed jumpers piling up, his playmaking and defensive grit kept the team afloat.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +38.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 35.2m -19.8
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 33.4m
7
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite rebounding from the guard position and suffocating perimeter defense drove a highly impactful performance despite a quiet scoring night. He acted as the primary connective tissue for the offense, constantly advancing the ball and finding cutters. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs completely disrupted the opponent's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +9.0
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 33.4m -18.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Onyeka Okongwu 31.9m
13
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Foul trouble or poor pick-and-roll coverage likely neutralized his highly efficient interior finishing. He struggled to drop effectively against quick guards, surrendering too many uncontested floaters. Despite cleaning up the glass, his inability to anchor the paint consistently resulted in a net-negative showing.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +27.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 31.9m -17.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 31.9m
16
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Defensive metrics look solid, but his overall impact hovered around neutral due to stalled offensive sets and forced isolation plays. He settled for tough, contested looks rather than keeping the ball moving against a set defense. The occasional defensive lapse in transition offset the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 31.9m -17.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

A lack of physicality and minimal off-ball engagement resulted in a severely negative stint on the floor. He was easily bullied off his spots defensively and failed to create any meaningful separation on offense. The game simply moved too fast for him, leading to blown assignments and empty trips.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 19.5m -11.0
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 16.1m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.1

An unexpected barrage of perimeter shooting completely broke the opposing defense's coverage principles. He exploited drop coverages flawlessly, dragging rim protectors away from the basket and opening up driving lanes for teammates. This scoring explosion, combined with sturdy post defense, resulted in a massive momentum shift.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 16.1m -9.0
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Lethal off-ball cutting and decisive spot-up shooting provided a quick, efficient offensive spark. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find easy looks at the rim. However, a lack of rebounding and secondary playmaking kept his overall influence relatively modest.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -72.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 12.9m -7.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 11.1m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

Steady, low-mistake basketball defined his brief appearance, providing just enough defensive resistance to keep his head above water. He focused primarily on initiating the offense and avoiding risky passes. While not a dynamic threat, his ability to execute the scheme without turning the ball over offered a stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -30.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 11.1m -6.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Complete offensive invisibility prevented him from making a positive mark on the game. While he competed adequately on the defensive end, his inability to threaten the rim allowed defenders to completely ignore him. The resulting spacing issues bogged down the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 10.2m -5.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nolan Traore 34.7m
11
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-16.6

A heavy volume of forced, low-percentage shots completely cratered his overall rating. Even though he competed hard defensively and chased loose balls, the offensive damage from stalled possessions and likely live-ball turnovers was too much to overcome. His shot selection routinely bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 34.7m -19.4
Impact -16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
18
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.7

A heavy volume of missed perimeter jumpers dragged down his overall efficiency and tanked his net impact. While he found ways to contribute as a connective passer, the sheer number of empty possessions stalled the offense. His inability to stretch the floor consistently allowed the defense to collapse on drives.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 34.6m -19.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 31.1m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Defensive versatility and high-motor rotations completely defined his positive impact, anchoring the frontcourt despite an inconsistent shooting night. He broke out of a recent scoring slump by finding soft spots in the zone, but it was his rim deterrence that kept his overall value in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.8
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 31.1m -17.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nic Claxton 30.6m
15
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.2

Offensive execution buoyed his value as he consistently capitalized on pick-and-roll mismatches to exceed his usual scoring output. However, his overall impact flattened out due to a lack of elite rim protection and secondary rim-running. He gave back a chunk of his offensive gains by struggling to contain dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 30.6m -17.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 28.0m
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.6

Relentless off-ball movement and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly productive two-way performance. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort, masking a few forced mid-range attempts. His defensive connectivity proved just as valuable as his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 28.0m -15.7
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Danny Wolf 18.4m
5
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Passive offensive tendencies limited his overall influence, as he frequently passed up open looks to reset the offense. While his positional defense and connective passing kept the second unit stable, he failed to apply any real pressure on the rim. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 18.4m -10.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.8

Absolute dominance in the paint during his short stint on the floor fueled a massive positive swing. He controlled the glass and altered shots at the rim, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities. His physical screen-setting and interior presence completely shifted the momentum of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.9
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 17.4m -9.8
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Terance Mann 17.4m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of his primary assignment severely undercut an otherwise efficient shooting night. He struggled to navigate screens, forcing the defense into disadvantageous rotations. The lack of overall aggression left him floating on the perimeter too often.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 17.4m -9.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 14.2m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Timely perimeter shooting and disciplined closeouts generated a modest but positive overall impact. He broke out of a recent slump by taking only high-value catch-and-shoot opportunities within the flow of the offense. His commitment to staying attached to shooters off the ball provided quiet, essential stability.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 14.2m -7.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Drake Powell 13.7m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Poor point-of-attack defense negated the value of his opportunistic scoring bursts. He was frequently targeted in isolation mismatches, bleeding points on one end while struggling to find a rhythm on the other. A few ill-advised closeouts allowed easy blow-bys that hurt the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -70.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.1
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 13.7m -7.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0