GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Noah Clowney 32.8m
22
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Shattered his recent scoring averages by catching fire as a trail big in transition. His ability to space the floor with elite perimeter efficiency completely warped the opposing defensive scheme, while active weak-side rotations bolstered his total impact.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 32.8m -17.4
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
26
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Punished late rotations with a steady diet of contested jumpers, carrying the scoring load effectively. His impact was somewhat capped by a lack of defensive resistance, but his elite shot-making over smaller wings kept his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.0
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 32.5m -17.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 32.0m
16
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.7

Dominated the game through exceptional high-post facilitation and suffocating rim protection. His massive defensive rating was driven by erasing shots at the basket, while his surprising playmaking out of the short roll picked the opponent apart.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.7
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 32.0m -17.0
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 28.1m
3
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

Bricklaying from beyond the arc severely damaged his team's offensive spacing and fueled opponent run-outs. He fought hard on defense and generated some loose-ball recoveries, but the abysmal shot selection ultimately tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 28.1m -14.8
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nolan Traore 27.8m
8
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.3

Excellent point-of-attack defense and passing vision were completely undone by poor finishing at the rim. His inability to convert in traffic led to empty possessions, dragging down an otherwise disruptive defensive performance.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 27.8m -14.6
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
Drake Powell 21.3m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Faded entirely into the background offensively, continuing a recent trend of passive play. While he offered solid defensive resistance on the wing, his failure to command any defensive attention allowed opponents to aggressively trap his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 21.3m -11.2
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Terance Mann 18.9m
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.6

Delivered a massive, unexpected scoring punch off the bench by relentlessly attacking closeouts. His highly efficient slashing broke his recent slump and carried the second unit, even with minimal contributions in the hustle departments.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 18.9m -10.0
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 16.6m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

Showcased a textbook 3-and-D masterclass that wildly exceeded his recent output. Elite hustle metrics and suffocating perimeter defense perfectly complemented his timely corner shooting, driving a massive positive impact in limited action.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 16.6m -8.8
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Struggled to anchor the interior during his rotational minutes, frequently getting caught out of position on pick-and-roll coverages. A few missed bunnies around the rim and poor defensive positioning resulted in a noticeable negative swing while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 16.0m -8.4
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Danny Wolf 14.2m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, bleeding value through slow defensive rotations and offensive hesitancy. His inability to secure the defensive glass or establish a post presence allowed the opposition to dominate the paint during his shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 14.2m -7.5
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 36.0m
21
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.8

Operated as a massive offensive catalyst, leveraging his playmaking to consistently break down the opposing defense. A strong blend of point-of-attack defense and secondary creation out of the pick-and-roll drove his highly positive rating over a heavy workload.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 36.0m -19.0
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 30.4m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Empty calorie scoring masked a highly detrimental floor game that dragged down his overall impact. Despite finding an offensive rhythm, defensive lapses in transition and costly live-ball turnovers completely erased his value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 30.4m -16.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Max Christie 28.9m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Perimeter shooting struggles and offensive stagnation tanked his overall rating despite a decent scoring bump. He salvaged some value through active hands on the defensive end, but forcing contested jumpers early in the clock ultimately derailed his stint.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 28.9m -15.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Daniel Gafford 16.6m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Anchored the paint effectively despite seeing a massive drop in his usual usage. His value was driven by vertical spacing and rim deterrence, forcing opponents to alter their shot selection in the restricted area.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 16.6m -8.9
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Khris Middleton 12.5m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Provided a stabilizing two-way presence in limited first-half minutes before exiting. Solid defensive positioning and timely weak-side rotations drove his positive rating, breaking a recent slump of inefficient play.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 12.5m -6.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
+3.6

Orchestrated the offense flawlessly, bouncing back from a recent shooting slump to carve up the defense with elite dribble penetration. His high impact score was fueled by generating high-quality looks for teammates while punishing drop coverage himself.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 86.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 29.4m -15.5
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Perimeter gravity was the defining trait of his performance, breaking out of a recent slump to stretch the defense thin. However, a lack of supplementary playmaking or defensive disruption kept his overall impact relatively muted despite the hot shooting.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 23.0m -12.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Martin 22.9m
3
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Tremendous hustle metrics and gritty perimeter defense couldn't compensate for a total lack of offensive rhythm. His inability to punish closeouts or finish plays allowed the defense to sag off, severely clogging the floor during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 22.9m -12.2
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
22
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt with an incredibly efficient interior scoring barrage. His defensive metrics were slightly negative, but his overwhelming success finishing out of the dunker spot dictated the flow of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 19.5m -10.3
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 10.8m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

An utter lack of offensive aggression completely stalled the second unit's momentum. While he provided some resistance at the point of attack, his refusal to look at the rim resulted in a stagnant half-court offense and a heavily negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 10.8m -5.7
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Functioned primarily as a screening specialist and space-eater during a brief rotational stint. Generated virtually no statistical footprint, with his slightly negative impact reflecting a lack of offensive threat that allowed defenders to cheat off him.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +55.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 9.1m -4.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 0.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Logged mere seconds of garbage time at the end of the contest. Did not have enough runway to register any meaningful events or alter the game's trajectory.

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 0.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.5m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Inserted solely to run out the clock in the final possession. His impact score reflects a completely neutral, eventless appearance.

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 0.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.5m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0