GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 33.4m
13
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
+15.9

Phenomenal defensive disruption and elite playmaking created a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor. He picked apart the opposing defense with precise reads while simultaneously suffocating ball-handlers on the other end. His two-way dominance dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +7.8
Defense +13.2
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 33.4m -17.7
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

A massive surge in offensive aggression fueled a positive rating, as he consistently bullied his way to the rim. Strong point-of-attack defense complemented his highly efficient finishing. He exploited slower matchups in transition to break out of his recent scoring slump.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 29.7m -15.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 26.4m
10
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

Elite rim deterrence and dominant interior defense drove his highly positive impact despite a rough shooting night. He anchored the paint flawlessly, altering numerous shots and cleaning up the defensive glass. The sheer volume of his hustle plays completely masked his struggles to finish inside.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +11.9
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 26.4m -13.9
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S CJ McCollum 26.1m
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.9

High-level shot creation and a significant scoring bump from his recent baseline powered a stellar impact score. He punished drop coverage repeatedly with his mid-range pull-up. The offensive gravity he provided opened up the floor for the rest of the unit.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 26.1m -13.7
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Missed perimeter assignments and a handful of clanked spot-up looks dragged his rating into the negative. While he maintained his recent scoring average, his inability to convert in traffic hurt the team's spacing. Opponents successfully neutralized his off-ball cutting by denying him the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 24.8m -13.2
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
33
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.6

An absolute flamethrower performance from beyond the arc generated a massive positive impact. He shattered his recent scoring averages by relentlessly hunting his shot off screens and punishing late closeouts. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he converted broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +43.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 28.1m -14.8
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jock Landale 18.3m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Missed bunnies around the basket neutralized the value of his stout post defense. He failed to capitalize on deep post position, dragging down his usually reliable efficiency. The resulting empty possessions prevented him from making a positive mark.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +55.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.9
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 18.3m -9.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A lack of offensive volume kept his impact hovering right around neutral. He provided solid weak-side rim protection but was largely ignored on the offensive end. The steep drop in his scoring involvement limited his overall influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.7
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 18.2m -9.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 16.1m
3
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

Poor defensive resistance and bricked perimeter looks resulted in a heavily negative rating. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, leading to defensive breakdowns and easy penetration. The inability to knock down open catch-and-shoot opportunities compounded his struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.1
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 16.1m -8.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Complete offensive invisibility and missed spot-up opportunities cratered his net rating. He failed to register a single point, halting his recent stretch of efficient shooting. The lack of floor-stretching gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint against the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 12.9m -6.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 3.0m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Brief minutes and minor defensive miscommunications resulted in a slightly negative score. He struggled with pick-and-roll positioning during his short stint on the floor. The limited sample size prevented him from establishing any real rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.0m -1.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Drawing fouls and securing extra possessions in limited action drove a surprisingly high impact score. He maximized his brief appearance by playing physically in the paint and getting to the charity stripe. The sudden burst of interior activity provided a spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 3.0m -1.5
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Will Riley 35.5m
14
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.3

A high volume of clanked perimeter shots severely dragged down his net rating despite solid defensive metrics. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock neutralized the value he brought on the glass. The stark drop in efficiency from his recent hot streak crippled the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -39.5
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 35.5m -18.8
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bilal Coulibaly 22.3m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite positive hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to empty possessions and missed jumpers. The scoring dip from his recent baseline highlighted a lack of offensive rhythm. He struggled to generate clean looks when forced to create off the dribble against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 22.3m -11.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bub Carrington 22.0m
2
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.9

Offensive passivity and a steep drop in scoring aggression cratered his overall value. He deferred too often on the perimeter, allowing the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes. While his hustle metrics remained steady, the lack of a scoring threat rendered him a liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 22.0m -11.6
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 20.0m
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Even with a highly efficient scoring surge compared to his recent slump, hidden mistakes like live-ball turnovers kept his net score negative. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities but gave back value through poor transition awareness. His off-ball gravity wasn't enough to offset the costly empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 20.0m -10.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Defensive lapses and poor rim protection kept his overall impact below water. He settled for low-percentage outside attempts rather than exploiting mismatches inside. Opponents consistently targeted his heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 16.8m -8.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Anthony Gill 31.2m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Excellent shot selection and timely defensive rotations kept his impact marginally positive. He extended his streak of highly efficient shooting by strictly taking what the defense conceded around the basket. Gritty positional rebounding anchored the second unit during crucial swing moments.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 31.2m -16.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Leaky Black 30.4m
4
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Despite strong defensive metrics, his complete lack of offensive involvement allowed opponents to play five-on-four. He passed up open looks and failed to stretch the floor, stalling the offensive engine. The resulting spacing issues heavily penalized his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 3.9%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 30.4m -16.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 27.5m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

A brutal shooting performance completely derailed his net impact, as he repeatedly forced contested isolation jumpers. The sheer volume of wasted possessions overshadowed an otherwise stellar effort in the hustle department. His tunnel vision against set defenses killed the team's ball movement.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.2%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +6.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 27.5m -14.5
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Tenacious defensive activity and timely closeouts salvaged his rating despite a cold shooting night. He made his mark by disrupting passing lanes and generating extra possessions through sheer effort. Continuing his recent trend of physical play, he found ways to contribute when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 19.9m -10.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

An inability to finish through contact at the rim resulted in a disastrous offensive rating. His erratic decision-making and forced drives into traffic killed multiple momentum-building possessions. The severe drop-off from his usual efficiency made him practically unplayable down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 14.3m -7.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0