GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 34.2m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Elite perimeter containment and active hands (+7.8 Def) were largely undone by a disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc. His inability to punish sagging defenders cramped the floor, neutralizing the value of his defensive stops. The performance was a frustrating tug-of-war between All-NBA caliber defense and offensive spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 34.2m -20.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S Anthony Edwards 34.1m
28
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

A massive bounce-back performance fueled by aggressive downhill driving and suffocating on-ball defense. He broke out of his recent slump by refusing to settle, consistently collapsing the defense to create high-value opportunities. His two-way dominance set a physical tone that the opposition simply could not match.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 35.9%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +10.8
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 34.1m -20.1
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 7
S Julius Randle 31.1m
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Ball-stopping tendencies and forced perimeter shots cratered his overall impact despite respectable counting stats. His insistence on settling for contested jumpers rather than leveraging his physical advantage inside stalled the offense's momentum. The resulting negative net rating reflects how his shot selection actively disrupted the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 31.1m -18.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Relentless off-ball movement and hustle plays couldn't quite overcome the negative margins during his shifts. While he knocked down his perimeter looks efficiently, he struggled to contain dribble penetration on the defensive end. His energetic presence was ultimately offset by team-wide defensive breakdowns while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 27.6m -16.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Joan Beringer 16.9m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Defensive liabilities in the paint severely undermined his flawless interior finishing. Opponents consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, exposing his slow lateral rotations and yielding easy baskets. His offensive efficiency was entirely negated by the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.4
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 16.9m -10.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 28.2m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.3

A deceptive performance where solid individual efficiency was overshadowed by poor defensive communication in transition. His inability to organize the floor during critical opponent runs dragged his net impact into the red. Despite hitting his open looks, his minutes were defined by a lack of overall lineup cohesion.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -42.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 28.2m -16.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact resulted in a highly detrimental stint. He forced the issue offensively, leading to empty possessions that ignited opponent transition opportunities. A lack of offensive rhythm completely derailed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -44.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 18.2m -10.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 15.4m
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.6

An absolute zero as a scoring threat, his hesitancy to shoot allowed defenders to aggressively clog the passing lanes. While his veteran defensive positioning remained solid, the offense completely stagnated under his direction. The severe negative impact underscores how much his current shooting slump is hurting floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 15.4m -9.1
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Bones Hyland 14.0m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Overcame a dreadful shooting night by unexpectedly locking in on the defensive end and generating extra possessions. His active hands and willingness to fight over screens provided hidden value that didn't show up in his shooting splits. It was a rare instance where his grittiness, rather than his scoring, kept him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -72.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 14.0m -8.2
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, resulting in rushed decisions and a steep negative impact. He failed to make an imprint defensively and bricked his few offensive opportunities, compounding his recent struggles. His minutes were a clear vulnerability that the opposition successfully exploited.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 8.5m -5.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Provided a brief but effective defensive spark during his limited run. He stayed disciplined on his assignments and avoided biting on pump fakes, stabilizing the perimeter defense. A purely situational appearance that accomplished exactly what was asked of him.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 3.9m -2.3
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to anchor the paint during a brief rotation, looking lost in pick-and-roll coverages. He offered no offensive utility and was consistently outmaneuvered for rebounding position. A highly ineffective cameo that the coaching staff quickly aborted.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.9m -2.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 3.9m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Lacked the foot speed to keep up with the pace of play during his short stint. He operated purely as a stationary ball-mover but was easily bypassed on defense. His presence on the floor was a net negative due to his inability to contest in space.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.9m -2.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 36.6m
24
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

A blistering perimeter shooting display masked underlying inefficiencies inside the arc, suppressing his overall net impact. While his floor-spacing gravity was undeniable, a high volume of missed two-pointers and potential defensive breakdowns kept his total value grounded. The contrast between his explosive scoring and marginal net rating highlights a need for better shot selection in traffic.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 36.6m -21.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyrese Maxey 35.5m
39
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.9

Elite shot creation and offensive orchestration drove a massive net positive rating. He relentlessly attacked drop coverages, generating high-quality looks for himself and collapsing the defense to create passing angles. This performance was defined by his sheer offensive gravity and ability to dictate the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 16/28 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.6%
USG% 40.2%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 35.5m -21.0
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 35.0m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.6

Exceptional defensive engagement (+10.8) and relentless hustle plays (+7.5) formed the foundation of his positive impact. He capitalized on his touches with efficient shot selection, continuing a strong recent scoring trend. His ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest on the perimeter defined his two-way value tonight.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +7.5
Defense +10.8
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 35.0m -20.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 27.7m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

A surprisingly negative overall impact (-3.6) suggests his minutes were plagued by poor rotational defense or costly turnovers that negated his efficient finishing. While he maintained his streak of high-percentage shooting, his presence coincided with detrimental opponent runs. He needs to translate his individual efficiency into functional team success.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 27.7m -16.3
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andre Drummond 21.6m
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

His physical presence generated solid box score value, but his overall impact zeroed out due to likely defensive lapses in pick-and-roll coverage. The scoring spike was a nice bonus, yet it wasn't enough to tilt the floor in his team's favor. Rebounding positioning remains his primary, albeit isolated, contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 21.6m -12.8
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.9

Lethal catch-and-shoot execution from beyond the arc fueled a highly efficient offensive outing. He stretched the defense perfectly as an off-ball threat, capitalizing on the spacing created by primary ball-handlers. His sustained shooting rhythm over the last week has transformed him into a reliable release valve.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 27.6m -16.4
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 19.9m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

Flawless execution around the rim and timely rim-runs maximized his value in limited minutes. He avoided the foul trouble and forced shots that often plague young bigs, playing strictly within his physical limitations. This disciplined approach to finishing through contact anchored a highly productive rotation shift.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 19.9m -11.8
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Completely invisible on the offensive end, his lack of production severely handicapped the second unit's spacing. Failing to register a single point or meaningful hustle play resulted in a steep negative impact during his brief stint. He was consistently a step slow on closeouts, allowing opponents to capitalize on his side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 11.9m -7.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Despite struggling to find the bottom of the net, he salvaged his stint through tenacious point-of-attack defense and loose-ball recoveries. His willingness to sacrifice his body and disrupt opposing ball-handlers offset his erratic shot selection. It was a classic case of grit and defensive positioning outweighing offensive futility.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 11.3m -6.7
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely saw the floor long enough to establish a rhythm, resulting in a negligible overall footprint. He converted his lone opportunity but offered little resistance defensively during his brief cameo. A purely transitional appearance with no defining sequences.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 3.9m -2.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Maximized a three-minute burst with perfect shooting and surprisingly stout defensive positioning. He injected immediate energy into the lineup, breaking a recent slump of poor efficiency. His ability to instantly lock into the game's pace made this a highly effective cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +76.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 3.0m -1.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Capitalized immediately on his limited touches by decisively attacking closeouts. His quick-trigger confidence provided a brief offensive spark, though his defensive engagement was virtually non-existent. A hyper-efficient micro-shift defined entirely by instant offense.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +76.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +4.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 3.0m -1.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Operated primarily as a connective passer during a very brief rotation. He kept the ball moving and maintained defensive integrity, avoiding any negative plays. A quiet, mistake-free appearance that barely moved the needle.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +76.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 3.0m -1.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0