GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
25
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Shot-chucking and forced perimeter looks completely derailed the offensive rhythm, negating the value of his high-volume rebounding. Despite decent positional size on defense (+4.0 Def), the sheer number of empty possessions he generated allowed the opponent to feast in transition.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 30.1m -18.0
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Noah Clowney 30.1m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Although he capitalized on open spot-up opportunities, his overall impact was dragged down by poor defensive rebounding and missed weak-side rotations. The opponent relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, turning his efficient shooting night into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 30.1m -17.9
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 29.9m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.9

A brutal combination of forced drives and blown assignments at the point of attack (-1.2 Def) resulted in a severely damaging shift. His insistence on attacking set defenses led to blocked shots and live-ball turnovers that directly fueled opponent scoring runs.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 29.9m -17.8
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 25.0m
6
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.4

Elite court vision generated high-quality looks for teammates, but a passive scoring approach allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the passing lanes. His stellar point-of-attack defense (+5.4 Def) was ultimately undermined by the team's inability to convert the advantages he created.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 25.0m -14.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 23.6m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite vertical spacing and rim-running anchored the offense, but his typical defensive dominance was neutralized by poor drop coverage (-0.7 Def). He salvaged a positive impact by converting high-percentage lob opportunities that kept the defense honest.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 23.6m -14.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 21.8m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Capable floor-spacing from the frontcourt pulled opposing bigs away from the rim, opening up driving lanes for the guards. However, his lack of interior physicality (+0.5 Def) allowed the opponent to generate second-chance points, washing out his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 21.8m -13.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 20.6m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Hesitancy on the perimeter severely cramped the floor, allowing the defense to pack the paint and stifle the primary scorers. While he avoided glaring mistakes, his lack of offensive gravity and low-impact hustle (+0.6) made him a liability during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 20.6m -12.2
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

Relentless rim-running and sheer physical dominance in the paint overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort (+2.7 Hustle), anchoring a highly productive second-unit stint that swung the momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 19.2m -11.4
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Ochai Agbaji 16.4m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Completely ignored by the defense, his clanked perimeter looks destroyed the half-court spacing and stalled multiple possessions. Even a respectable effort navigating screens (+2.4 Def) couldn't salvage a shift defined by offensive ineptitude.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 16.4m -9.8
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Drifting aimlessly around the perimeter resulted in a string of empty possessions that killed the team's offensive rhythm. His inability to stay in front of his man on drives (-0.1 Def) compounded the damage, leading to a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -73.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 13.0m -7.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Wreaked absolute havoc as a weak-side helper (+4.6 Def), blowing up multiple actions during a brief but highly impactful stint. He missed his offensive looks, but his frenetic energy and deflections (+1.9 Hustle) injected life into a stagnant defensive unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 5.1m -3.1
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Instant offense off the bench defined this explosive cameo, as he punished late closeouts with lethal precision. He didn't log a single hustle or defensive stat, functioning purely as a designated sniper to bust the opponent's zone coverage.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 5.1m -3.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Devin Vassell 27.6m
14
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.5

Efficient perimeter shot selection drove a strong offensive rating, but his overall net impact (+3.5) was muted by defensive lapses during transition sequences. His ability to space the floor with timely corner threes kept the offense flowing even when half-court sets bogged down.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 27.6m -16.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.0

Despite a severe drop-off in scoring efficiency and poor perimeter shot selection, his defensive gravity (+6.6 Def) remained game-altering. He salvaged his overall impact through constant rim deterrence and high-activity hustle plays (+5.1) that created second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +6.6
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 25.9m -15.5
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 25.4m
18
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.4

Clunky finishing at the rim dragged down his offensive efficiency, but he compensated by applying immense pressure on the defensive end. His willingness to fight through screens and generate deflections (+4.0 Hustle) ensured he remained a net positive despite the shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 25.4m -15.2
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 24.7m
14
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.9

Surgical penetration into the paint allowed him to dictate the tempo and generate high-quality looks without forcing bad shots. His steady point-of-attack defense (+3.8 Def) against opposing guards cemented a highly efficient, mistake-free floor game.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 24.7m -14.7
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.4

An absolute two-way masterclass defined by relentless point-of-attack defense (+9.9 Def) and elite shot-making. He capitalized on defensive rotations by burying catch-and-shoot looks, generating a massive +23.4 net impact that single-handedly swung the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +9.9
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 23.9m -14.4
Impact +23.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
Dylan Harper 29.1m
12
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.4

Playmaking duties came at a steep cost, as empty possessions and poor spacing during his shifts resulted in a harsh -7.4 net impact. Even with active hands in the passing lanes (+3.0 Hustle), his inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint against the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 29.1m -17.4
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Luke Kornet 18.7m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Masterful screen-setting and constant activity on the glass (+5.1 Hustle) anchored the interior during his minutes. He rarely touched the ball offensively but generated immense value by sealing off drop defenders and contesting everything at the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 18.7m -11.2
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.5

Bully-ball drives and impeccable shot selection fueled a highly productive stint that punished mismatches in the post. He kept the ball moving and avoided negative plays, allowing his sheer scoring gravity to drive a stellar +7.5 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 18.2m -10.8
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Stagnant off-ball movement and clanked perimeter looks derailed the offensive flow whenever he was on the floor. While his positional defense (+3.6 Def) prevented a complete disaster, his inability to punish closeouts severely capped the team's ceiling during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +55.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 16.2m -9.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

A complete offensive short-circuit defined this outing, with forced jumpers and blown layups cratering his net impact (-11.7). The opposing defense completely ignored him on the perimeter, which destroyed the team's spacing and led to stalled half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total -4.0
Avg player in 13.0m -7.7
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Quick-trigger shooting provided a brief offensive spark, though his lack of defensive resistance (-0.8 Def) gave those points right back. He functioned purely as a floor spacer in a highly specialized role, resulting in a perfectly neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -41.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 7.6m -4.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Conservative ball movement kept the offense out of trouble, but a lack of downhill aggression limited his ability to break down the defense. His brief stint was largely a placeholder, with minor rotational delays on defense tilting his impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 6.1m -3.6
Impact -1.0
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
-2.0

Invisible during a microscopic stint, failing to register any meaningful contributions on either end of the floor. The negative net impact reflects the bench unit bleeding points in transition while he struggled to match the game's pace.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.3m -2.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0