GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.4m
15
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.8

Heavy isolation usage bogged down the offensive flow, leading to stagnant possessions that allowed the opponent to dictate the tempo. While his individual shot creation looked fine in a vacuum, the ball stuck too much, cratering the team's overall rhythm. His negative impact reflects a failure to elevate the surrounding lineup.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 35.4m -21.0
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 33.9m
21
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

Downhill aggression and decisive perimeter shooting kept the defense constantly on its heels. He exploited gaps in the pick-and-roll coverage, finishing through contact while maintaining excellent efficiency. Solid defensive metrics suggest he held his own at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.4
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 33.9m -20.1
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.8

Individual shot-making completely failed to translate into lineup success, as the team bled points during his shifts. Despite decent defensive metrics on paper, his inability to organize the half-court offense led to disastrous transitional sequences for the opponent. The scoring volume was merely a band-aid over deeply negative rotational impact.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 32.6m -19.2
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Scottie Barnes 32.0m
15
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.5

Exceptional weak-side rim protection and switchability salvaged an otherwise clunky offensive outing. He missed numerous bunnies around the basket, but his defensive versatility completely neutralized the opponent's frontcourt. The massive defensive rating highlights his role as the ultimate eraser.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +11.5
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 32.0m -19.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Generated tremendous value through sheer effort, dominating the hustle metrics with extra-effort plays and textbook closeouts. Though his scoring plummeted, his willingness to do the dirty work—setting hard screens and rotating flawlessly—anchored the lineup. A prime example of impacting winning without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +6.5
Defense +8.5
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 30.2m -17.9
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jamal Shead 23.2m
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

Provided a steadying presence by taking what the defense gave him and knocking down open spot-up looks. He navigated screens well and maintained a low-mistake profile during his shift. The efficiency spike was a welcome boost to the secondary unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 23.2m -13.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Torched the nets with elite shot preparation and a lightning-quick release from beyond the arc. His ability to punish defensive lapses in transition completely tilted the floor. The massive scoring surge was driven entirely by exceptional shot selection and off-ball relocation.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 94.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 22.7m -13.4
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

A disastrous shooting night from the perimeter severely compromised the team's spacing. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum. While his defensive rotations were adequate, the bricked shots were simply too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 15.5m -9.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Struggled to leave a footprint during his limited run, largely blending into the background. He hesitated on a few open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to recover and reset. Lacked the assertiveness needed to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 9.1m -5.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Ran empty miles during a brief stint, failing to attempt a single shot or bend the defense. He was purely a cardio participant on offense, though he executed his defensive assignments without glaring errors. The lack of offensive involvement kept his impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 5.5m -3.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Cason Wallace 35.0m
27
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.6

Slicing through defensive coverages with surgical precision, his shot selection was virtually flawless. He consistently punished closeouts and made rapid, high-value reads in transition. The massive efficiency spike fueled a highly productive offensive stretch that put the game out of reach.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 35.0m -20.8
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 34.5m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Offensive inefficiency tanked his overall value, as settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers derailed the team's half-court rhythm. The sheer volume of missed shots fueled opponent transition opportunities, negating his solid point-of-attack defense. His scoring bump completely masked a highly detrimental shot profile.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 34.5m -20.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Joe 32.9m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.1

Perimeter gravity and relentless off-ball movement created massive spacing advantages that broke the opponent's defensive shell. He generated immense value not just through elite catch-and-shoot execution, but by scrambling rotations and fighting through screens. High hustle metrics highlight a continuous effort that elevated the entire lineup.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +12.7
Defense +5.3
Raw total +35.6
Avg player in 32.9m -19.5
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 30.3m
7
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Elite rim protection and defensive positioning drove his positive impact, completely overshadowing a quiet scoring night. He anchored the paint effectively against drop coverage, deterring drives and altering shots at the rim. The lack of offensive volume was a non-issue given his massive defensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +11.4
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 30.3m -17.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
11
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.4

Dominated the interior through sheer efficiency and positional awareness on both ends of the floor. His ability to secure contested rebounds and finish reliably in the pick-and-roll stabilized the second unit. Defensive verticality heavily suppressed opponent finishing in the restricted area.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.7
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 25.9m -15.4
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Alex Caruso 22.5m
16
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.6

Two-way stability defined his minutes, combining timely perimeter shot-making with disruptive point-of-attack defense. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and generated transition opportunities through deflections. The offensive surge provided a crucial secondary scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 22.5m -13.4
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.4

A broken perimeter stroke and inability to connect from deep severely cramped the floor, allowing the defense to pack the paint. His negative impact stemmed directly from empty offensive possessions and failing to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities. The stark drop in efficiency broke his recent streak of reliable finishing and stalled out the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 16.6m -9.8
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

Operated strictly as a connector, keeping the ball moving and executing dribble hand-offs without forcing his own offense. High hustle markers reflect his willingness to set bruising screens and battle for loose balls. A completely neutral stint defined by doing the dirty work.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 16.2m -9.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Offensive zeroes across the board dragged down his overall rating despite adequate defensive positioning. He short-rimmed multiple open looks, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. The inability to punish sagging defenders stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 10.5m -6.2
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 10.1m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Struggled to find a rhythm during his brief stint, largely floating on the perimeter without pressuring the rim. While his defensive rotations were passable, the lack of offensive aggression limited his overall utility. Failed to exploit mismatches when the defense switched.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 10.1m -6.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Barely registered an impact during garbage-time minutes, lacking the aggression to dictate the tempo. He was mostly a bystander on both ends of the floor, failing to generate any meaningful dribble penetration. The brief flash of perimeter shooting couldn't salvage a passive stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 5.5m -3.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1