GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Seized control of the backup guard minutes by pairing a sudden, highly efficient scoring surge with tenacious point-of-attack defense (+4.8 Def). His decisive decision-making out of the pick-and-roll carved up the opposing second unit all night.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 27.2m -12.1
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Green 26.0m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Stubbornly firing away through a brutal shooting slump severely damaged the team's offensive flow. The sheer volume of clanked perimeter jumpers and forced drives derailed multiple possessions, far outweighing his marginal defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.4%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -74.7
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 26.0m -11.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Dunn 25.0m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Flawless shot selection from beyond the arc catalyzed a highly efficient offensive showing. He complemented that disciplined offensive approach with sharp weak-side defensive rotations (+2.6 Def) to comfortably win his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.0m -11.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Royce O'Neale 21.4m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Sizzling perimeter execution was completely undermined by defensive lapses and a failure to secure the defensive glass. Despite spacing the floor effectively, his inability to contain dribble penetration kept his overall impact firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 21.4m -9.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mark Williams 18.5m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Erased multiple shots at the rim and provided elite interior resistance (+5.4 Def), but his offensive rhythm completely vanished. A stark drop-off in finishing authority around the basket neutralized the immense value of his rim protection.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -71.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 18.5m -8.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

A frigid night from beyond the arc torpedoed his value, as he continually short-rimmed open catch-and-shoot opportunities. His respectable hustle metrics (+1.9) did little to offset the momentum-killing nature of his nine wasted perimeter possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 38.3%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 24.2m -10.8
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 23.6m
4
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

Pivoted seamlessly into a facilitation role when his usual interior scoring dried up, acting as a high-post hub to keep the offense humming. Elite defensive anchoring (+4.0 Def) and relentless screen-setting ensured he remained a net positive despite the sharp drop in his own shot attempts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 23.6m -10.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Amir Coffey 22.8m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Floated through his minutes without leaving a definitive stamp on the game, taking only what the defense conceded. A lack of aggressive rim pressure or disruptive defensive plays resulted in a quiet, slightly negative shift.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 22.8m -10.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Getting bullied off his spots defensively compounded a completely barren offensive performance. Despite showing flashes of energy on loose balls (+2.3 Hustle), his inability to secure the paint or contribute a single point made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense -0.7
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 20.6m -9.2
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Offensive invisibility plagued his time on the floor, as he failed to bend the defense or convert on his handful of looks. While he offered mild resistance on the perimeter, his inability to orchestrate or score effectively left the offense completely stagnant during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 19.0m -8.5
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.2

Unleashed absolute havoc in a spectacular five-minute cameo, dominating the physical exchanges. A staggering hustle rating (+3.3) in such limited action highlighted a stretch where he seemingly contested every shot and fought for every loose ball.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +56.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 5.8m -2.6
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Koby Brea 5.8m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Capitalized on a brief rotational opportunity by knocking down a clean look from the perimeter. He survived his defensive assignments without making any glaring errors, resulting in a perfectly neutral, mistake-free stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +56.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 5.8m -2.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 34.3m
22
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+16.8

Stepping into a primary creation role, he shredded his recent scoring averages while maintaining elite point-of-attack defense (+8.6 Def). His ability to balance high-volume perimeter creation with relentless hustle plays (+3.5) resulted in a masterclass two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 34.3m -15.2
Impact +16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
11
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Doubling his usual scoring average provided a much-needed offensive spark, though his perimeter stroke remained notably flat. Strong positional rebounding and defensive rotations (+4.0 Def) kept his overall impact in the black despite the bricked threes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 31.7m -14.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ron Harper Jr. 30.3m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Snapping a severe three-game scoring drought provided a slight offensive lift, but erratic shot selection from beyond the arc capped his ceiling. He managed to hover near a neutral overall impact strictly by grinding out defensive stops and generating loose-ball recoveries.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +37.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 30.3m -13.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 28.6m
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

Floor-spacing gravity drove a healthy box score metric, as his willingness to fire from deep kept the defense stretched. However, a lack of secondary hustle plays (+0.4) and average defensive resistance meant his overall footprint was mostly limited to his shooting stroke.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 28.6m -12.7
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 26.8m
14
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.6

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive +16.6 overall impact rating. He consistently walled off the rim on defense (+6.0 Def) while maintaining his streak of highly efficient interior finishing to anchor the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +58.7
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 26.8m -12.0
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.8

A disastrous shooting night cratered his overall footprint, as he repeatedly forced up heavily contested perimeter looks to no avail. Despite showing solid defensive resistance (+4.3 Def) and fighting over screens, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 34.4m -15.4
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Settling for contested jumpers rather than establishing deep post position tanked his offensive efficiency. While he offered passable drop-coverage defense, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 19.4m -8.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Operated strictly as a passenger during his floor time, rarely looking to initiate or disrupt the opposing scheme. A lack of tangible hustle plays or off-ball movement resulted in a slightly negative outing despite not forcing any bad shots.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 13.3m -6.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.6

Injected pure energy into the rotation during a brief but highly effective first-half stint. A phenomenal hustle rating (+3.8) in under ten minutes of action highlighted his relentless motor on 50/50 balls and quick defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +62.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 9.3m -4.2
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 3.9m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Tried to cram a full quarter's worth of usage into a four-minute stint, resulting in rushed, out-of-rhythm attempts that snapped his recent efficiency streak. His inability to anchor the paint defensively during that brief window compounded the negative impact of his forced shots.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 55.6%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.9m -1.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
John Tonje 3.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Completely invisible during a short rotational cameo, failing to register a single hustle play or defensive stop. Getting targeted on the perimeter defensively quickly pushed his brief appearance into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 3.9m -1.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Logged empty cardio during his brief time on the hardwood, failing to record a single measurable statistic. His complete lack of aggression or defensive disruption left the team playing four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.9m -1.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0