GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 34.8m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Struggling to finish inside the arc, timely perimeter shooting and active hustle were required to keep his head above water. He consistently fought through screens to contest shooters, adding crucial hidden value on the defensive end. A shot profile heavily skewed toward the outside bailed out what was otherwise a clunky offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 34.8m -14.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 33.0m
30
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.4

Massive offensive volume and elite defensive rebounding drove a dominant overall impact, even with uncharacteristic inefficiency from the floor. He relentlessly tested the interior defense, using his gravity to create secondary actions when his own shots weren't falling. A steady diet of forced threes slightly dampened his efficiency, but his sheer presence dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 41.6%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 33.0m -13.6
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 27.5m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

High-level hustle and positive box metrics were inexplicably dragged down, likely by unseen errors like poor spacing or missed rotations. He knocked down his perimeter looks but saw his overall volume sliced in half compared to recent outings. The stark contrast between his energy stats and his slightly negative net score suggests hidden mistakes in the half-court defense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 27.5m -11.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

A surprising scoring surge was completely undone by defensive lapses and a failure to secure loose balls. While he found a great rhythm attacking closeouts, his inability to stay in front of his man allowed the opponent to trade baskets effortlessly. The scoring efficiency masked a highly detrimental performance on the other side of the ball.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 26.0m -10.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jamal Murray 7.8m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Marking an abrupt departure from his recent scoring dominance, he failed to establish any rhythm before exiting the game early. He looked hesitant attacking the pick-and-roll, settling for tough looks rather than pressuring the rim. Minimal minutes and a distinct lack of aggression resulted in a quiet, slightly negative outing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 7.8m -3.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 27.6m
4
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.0

Elite defensive disruption and relentless hustle were completely overshadowed by an abysmal shooting performance. He snapped a highly efficient scoring streak by forcing wild attempts in the paint and clanking open perimeter looks. The inability to convert easy opportunities severely handicapped the offense, despite his phenomenal effort on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 27.6m -11.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Increased offensive aggression wasn't enough to overcome defensive shortcomings that allowed opponents to score at will. He battled hard on the glass, but frequently found himself out of position during critical weak-side rotations. The massive uptick in scoring was ultimately negated by the easy points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +43.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 25.8m -10.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Capitalizing on aggressive drives to the basket, he broke away from his usual reliance on the three-point shot. He found great success attacking scrambled defenses in transition, providing a much-needed scoring punch off the bench. Solid defensive positioning helped solidify a strong two-way performance that easily exceeded his recent baseline.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 21.3m -8.8
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
KJ Simpson 14.3m
2
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Overcoming poor shooting, he acted as a disruptive force on the perimeter by blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs. He kept the offense moving with quick decisions and crisp passing, even when his own shots refused to fall. Intense defensive pressure and smart playmaking completely salvaged what could have been a disastrous stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 14.3m -5.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.7

Dominating the painted area with brutal efficiency, he consistently punished smaller defenders on the low block. He established deep post position early and often, forcing the defense to collapse and opening up the perimeter. A near-flawless offensive execution combined with solid rim deterrence resulted in a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +37.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 12.3m -5.0
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 7.0m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Providing solid defensive resistance in the post, he unfortunately acted as an absolute zero on the offensive end. He failed to make himself available as a roll man, leading to stagnant possessions when he was on the floor. This lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 7.0m -2.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Maximizing a tiny window of playing time, he delivered perfect shooting and immediate offensive execution. He confidently stepped into a perimeter look and finished strong inside, instantly shifting the momentum for the second unit. This explosive micro-stint showcased incredible efficiency and readiness off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 2.6m -1.0
Impact +4.5
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 Jaylen Brown 33.8m
23
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

High-volume inefficiency from the perimeter severely dragged down his overall impact despite strong defensive metrics. He repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock, which fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. His active weak-side rotations and hustle plays were the only things keeping his net score near neutral during the shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 37.2%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 33.8m -13.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
S Derrick White 32.7m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.8

An absolute force on the defensive end, he consistently blew up pick-and-rolls to generate stops that translated directly into offensive momentum. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, he hunted his shot aggressively from deep to punish drop coverages. The combination of elite point-of-attack defense and timely perimeter shot-making drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 32.7m -13.4
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S Neemias Queta 28.4m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Solid interior finishing and active rim protection were offset by hidden negatives that kept his net impact slightly below zero. While his streak of highly efficient shooting continued, poor pick-and-roll positioning likely gave back value on the defensive end. He controlled the paint well in short bursts, yet struggled to sustain positive momentum over his extended run.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 28.4m -11.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Over-reliance on the three-point shot resulted in a volatile offensive profile that ultimately hurt the team's spacing. He exceeded his recent scoring average, but the sheer volume of missed perimeter jumpers stalled out several half-court possessions. Defensive limitations and a lack of secondary playmaking compounded the damage from his streaky shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 24.5m -10.1
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 24.4m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

A sudden lack of offensive involvement severely limited his ability to influence the game, completely breaking his recent streak of highly efficient scoring. He failed to find open seams against tight perimeter coverage, rendering him a non-factor in half-court sets. The minimal defensive resistance couldn't salvage a quiet night where he struggled to generate any separation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 24.4m -10.0
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Aggressive closeouts completely disrupted his rhythm off the bounce, causing a sharp regression from his recent scoring tear. He provided solid defensive pressure at the point of attack, but the lack of offensive production created a massive void for the second unit. Failing to penetrate and collapse the defense resulted in a highly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 27.8m -11.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Brick-laying from the outside completely neutralized his offensive utility, as he failed to capitalize on wide-open pick-and-pop opportunities. His defensive positioning provided some stability, but the sheer volume of empty possessions dragged his score into the red. The inability to punish smaller defenders inside forced the offense into highly stagnant half-court situations.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 23.0m -9.4
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 13.7m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Perfect execution on low volume wasn't enough to generate a positive overall impact due to a severe lack of overall involvement. He brought solid energy to the wing, but struggled to assert himself against physical matchups. This quiet performance left him floating on the perimeter rather than actively shaping the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 13.7m -5.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc torpedoed his value during a brief stint on the floor. He repeatedly settled for contested early-clock threes, killing offensive momentum and sparking opponent run-outs. Negative defensive metrics further highlighted a rotation defined by poor decision-making and blown assignments.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 10.7m -4.3
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Making the most of limited minutes, he executed within the flow of the offense and provided energetic on-ball defense. He capitalized on broken plays to secure easy buckets, significantly outperforming his typical offensive output. Quick defensive rotations helped stabilize the second unit during a crucial first-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 10.2m -4.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 5.5m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Despite failing to register a point and snapping a highly efficient scoring streak, active hustle plays kept his brief appearance in the green. He focused entirely on setting hard screens and battling for positioning in the paint. This gritty, low-usage approach provided just enough hidden value to offset the complete lack of offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 5.5m -2.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A completely invisible offensive stint was marginally salvaged by decent defensive positioning during his five minutes of action. He failed to leverage his size to create advantages, resulting in empty possessions when initiating the offense. The lack of aggression and playmaking ultimately resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 5.5m -2.3
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0