GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

A massive surge in perimeter shot-making masked underlying defensive vulnerabilities that ultimately dragged his total impact into the red. He successfully stretched the floor and hit timely jumpers to keep the offense afloat. However, he was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on the other end faster than he could score them.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 33.1m -15.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Ryan Dunn 30.9m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.5

A disastrous shooting night completely overshadowed his otherwise solid defensive effort (+5.2). He repeatedly short-circuited offensive sets by missing open perimeter looks and failing to finish at the rim. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, which suffocated the team's half-court spacing and drove his steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 30.9m -14.6
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 24.8m
0
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Offensive invisibility doomed his overall rating, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt during his rotation. His inability to punish closeouts or hit spot-up threes allowed the defense to aggressively double the primary ball-handlers. Even his standard veteran defensive positioning couldn't compensate for the dead weight he provided on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 24.8m -11.7
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Green 22.3m
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Salvaged a rough perimeter shooting night by locking in on the defensive end with surprising effectiveness (+7.4). Rather than letting his offensive struggles dictate his energy, he used his athleticism to jump passing lanes and stay in front of his man. His willingness to attack the basket when the jumper wasn't falling kept the defense honest.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 22.3m -10.5
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 15.1m
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

Overcame a dip in his usual elite finishing efficiency by dominating the physical battles in the paint. His strong defensive positioning (+4.8) and active contest rate disrupted multiple interior drives. He consistently imposed his size advantage on the glass, generating crucial second-chance opportunities that kept his net impact highly positive.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -45.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 15.1m -7.1
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Amir Coffey 23.2m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Played the role of the ultimate connector, utilizing smart off-ball movement and disciplined perimeter defense (+5.4) to drive a highly positive net rating. He rarely let the ball stick in his hands, making quick decisions that kept the offensive flow intact. His ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions neutralized several opponent sets.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -26.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 23.2m -11.1
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Provided a reliable catch-and-shoot threat from the corners but struggled to influence the game beyond his specific offensive role. His defensive rotations were sharp (+4.9), yet he found himself outmuscled on the interior during critical stretches. The lack of secondary playmaking limited his ability to swing the momentum when his unit stalled.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 21.8m -10.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

Sparked the second unit with aggressive point-of-attack defense (+5.1) and relentless hustle. He capitalized on broken plays to boost his scoring output well above his recent baseline. By constantly pressuring the ball-handler, he forced hurried decisions that directly translated into transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 21.4m -10.1
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 17.1m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Transitioned into a pure defensive anchor role (+5.9) as his offensive touches plummeted compared to recent outings. He maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing by only taking point-blank looks, refusing to force bad shots. Excellent screen-setting and rim deterrence kept him slightly in the green despite the lack of scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 17.1m -8.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Maximized his limited touches by rolling hard to the rim and finishing efficiently through contact. He provided a steady, physical presence in the paint that forced the defense to collapse inward. While his hustle metrics were surprisingly low, his sheer size altered enough shots to keep his overall impact positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 16.3m -7.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Continued a brutal stretch of offensive futility by failing to connect on a single field goal attempt once again. His inability to punish defensive rotations allowed opponents to freely clog the paint and stifle the half-court offense. Without any playmaking or elite defensive traits to fall back on, his missed jumpers resulted in a heavy negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 12.4m -5.8
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Koby Brea 1.6m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Made a fleeting cameo at the end of the rotation, managing to drill a perimeter jumper in his limited seconds on the floor. The sample size was entirely too small to draw any meaningful conclusions about his two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 1.6m -0.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 34.8m
12
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.7

Elite defensive metrics and high-motor hustle plays (+9.8) drove a massive positive impact despite a slight dip in his recent scoring volume. His ability to secure contested boards and disrupt passing lanes established a physical tone for the frontcourt. He consistently generated extra possessions without needing heavy offensive touches to dictate the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +37.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +9.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 34.8m -16.5
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Donovan Clingan 31.0m
23
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.4

An absolute breakout performance anchored by suffocating rim protection (+15.7 defensive impact) and a shocking surge in offensive aggression. He completely overwhelmed interior matchups, converting high-percentage looks while stretching the floor unexpectedly well. This dominant two-way presence dictated the paint and resulted in a team-high net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +15.7
Raw total +34.1
Avg player in 31.0m -14.7
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 29.6%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 5
S Jerami Grant 30.8m
23
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.4

Exceptional shot selection and perimeter efficiency fueled a dominant offensive rating. He capitalized on isolation mismatches on the wing, punishing late closeouts to sustain scoring momentum. While his rebounding and defensive metrics were pedestrian, the sheer quality of his offensive execution carried his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 30.8m -14.6
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jrue Holiday 28.9m
6
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-12.4

A severe regression in shooting efficiency cratered his overall value, as he forced contested looks and failed to connect from deep. Although he maintained his standard point-of-attack defensive intensity, the empty offensive possessions heavily outweighed those contributions. Opponents successfully dared him to shoot, stalling out the half-court offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 28.9m -13.6
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Deni Avdija 1.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Logged less than a minute of floor time, rendering his statistical footprint virtually non-existent. A sudden exit prevented him from establishing any rhythm or replicating his recent high-volume scoring output.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.0m -0.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.6

Inefficient perimeter shot selection severely dragged down his net impact, as he repeatedly settled for low-quality jumpers early in the clock. He did manage to salvage some value through active rotational defense and loose-ball recoveries (+5.1 hustle). However, his inability to finish through contact or stretch the defense ultimately stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 29.6m -14.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
Kris Murray 22.1m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Generated a modest positive impact through disciplined weak-side defense (+5.9) and opportunistic cutting. He didn't force his offense, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns rather than trying to create in isolation. His ability to stay attached to shooters on the perimeter provided steady, low-mistake minutes for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.9
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 22.1m -10.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Completely derailed offensive possessions by bricking every perimeter look he took, leading to a steep negative box impact. Opposing wings sagged off him aggressively, which clogged the driving lanes for his teammates. While his defensive positioning was adequate, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips made him a major liability.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 17.5m -8.3
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 15.4m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Provided a stabilizing presence off the bench by focusing entirely on high-energy defensive rotations and hustle plays (+5.5). He recognized his limited offensive role and avoided forcing bad shots, instead acting as a connective piece. Disciplined closeouts on the perimeter ensured he remained a net positive despite minimal scoring involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 15.4m -7.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.3

Anchored the interior defense during his brief stint, deterring drives and altering shots at a high level (+9.6 defensive impact). He maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the basket by strictly taking what the defense conceded. His vertical spacing and rim-protection fundamentals completely shifted the geometry of the floor while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.6
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 15.4m -7.3
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Struggled to leave a meaningful imprint on the game, as a lack of offensive aggression neutralized his usual disruptive defensive value. He was largely bypassed in the half-court sets, failing to generate the transition opportunities that usually fuel his scoring. A passive approach on the wing allowed his matchup to rest on defense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -44.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 11.9m -5.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Saw only fleeting garbage-time action, making any statistical impact negligible. He managed to convert a quick look in transition before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 66.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.6m -0.7
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0