GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 42.2m
36
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.0

Relentless rim pressure and highly efficient shot creation fueled a massive offensive surge. He consistently broke down primary defenders in isolation, generating high-quality looks while maintaining excellent defensive intensity. This aggressive downhill attacking defined the team's offensive identity whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 14/23 (60.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.2m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 42.2m -25.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 33.3m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Despite finding an efficient scoring rhythm, his overall impact cratered due to bleeding points during his defensive shifts. He gave back nearly everything he generated on offense by struggling to navigate screens and contain dribble penetration. This inability to string together stops completely undermined his much-improved shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 33.3m -19.8
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

High-percentage interior finishing was entirely overshadowed by costly defensive lapses that sank his net rating. Opponents actively targeted him in the pick-and-roll, exploiting his slow lateral rotations to generate easy looks at the rim. The steady diet of given-up paint points negated his otherwise flawless offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 28.6m -17.1
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Max Christie 26.8m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.0

Clunky perimeter execution and defensive miscommunications resulted in a disastrous overall impact score. He repeatedly forced contested jumpers late in the shot clock, leading to empty trips and transition run-outs for the opposition. Being consistently a step slow on closeouts compounded the damage during his rough rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 26.8m -15.9
Impact -16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Caleb Martin 20.3m
10
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Opportunistic scoring and stout perimeter defense anchored a highly effective two-way showing. He picked his spots perfectly within the offensive flow while consistently blowing up opponent actions on the other end. This disciplined, mistake-free approach provided crucial connective tissue for the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 20.3m -12.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.2

A solid offensive rhythm was ultimately undone by defensive vulnerabilities that allowed opponents to capitalize during his shifts. While he finished his scoring opportunities efficiently, he struggled to contain his matchups at the point of attack. Those perimeter containment issues allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo and erase his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 27.0m -16.1
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

A failure to generate secondary actions or impact the game beyond spot-up shooting resulted in a slightly negative rating. He knocked down his open looks but was frequently targeted in space on the defensive end, bleeding points in isolation. The lack of off-ball disruption or hustle plays meant he couldn't compensate for the defensive mismatches.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 15.8m -9.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
AJ Johnson 14.8m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Flawless shot selection and opportunistic scoring bursts provided a massive lift in limited action. He maximized every touch by attacking closeouts decisively and refusing to force bad looks. This burst of unexpected, highly efficient offense completely shifted the momentum during the second unit's run.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 14.8m -8.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

A lack of offensive gravity and minimal rim protection dragged his net rating into the negative during a brief stint. He was largely invisible in the half-court sets, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and crowd the primary ball-handlers. Despite showing flashes of hustle, his inability to alter shots defensively made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 12.8m -7.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 11.9m
1
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

Complete offensive passivity and an inability to break down the defense resulted in a starkly negative impact score. He failed to collapse the paint or generate high-value looks for teammates, leading to stagnant half-court possessions. This lack of playmaking aggression allowed the opposing defense to comfortably stay home on shooters.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 11.9m -7.0
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Missed bunnies around the rim prevented him from registering a more impactful stint. However, his active presence on the glass and solid positional defense kept his overall rating slightly above water. He essentially played to a draw by exchanging wasted offensive trips for extra hustle possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 6.6m -3.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 39.1m
13
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.4

A high volume of empty possessions and forced perimeter looks dragged his overall impact firmly into the negative. Even though he generated impressive hustle metrics and locked down his assignments defensively, the sheer number of wasted offensive trips negated that effort. His insistence on shooting through a cold streak stalled out multiple crucial offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.4
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 39.1m -23.3
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
29
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+26.6

Elite shot selection and flawless perimeter execution drove a massive positive impact score. He dominated his frontcourt matchups by combining high-efficiency finishing with disruptive defensive rotations that completely neutralized the opponent's interior sets. Sustaining this level of two-way dominance completely tilted the floor in Sacramento's favor.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +35.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.2
Raw total +46.2
Avg player in 33.2m -19.6
Impact +26.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Devin Carter 32.4m
15
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense kept his overall impact above water despite a broken perimeter jumper. He compensated for his lack of spacing by generating extra possessions through relentless hustle and disruptive passing lane reads. The defensive intensity masked what was otherwise a clunky and inefficient offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.9
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 32.4m -19.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Maxime Raynaud 31.5m
22
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.4

Consistent interior finishing and highly effective defensive positioning fueled a stellar net rating. He exploited mismatches in the paint relentlessly, maintaining a highly efficient offensive rhythm without forcing bad looks. His ability to anchor the paint while capitalizing on high-percentage drop-offs defined his highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 31.5m -18.8
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 72.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S DeMar DeRozan 25.4m
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.1

Extreme offensive passivity torpedoed his overall impact, as he barely looked at the rim compared to his usual high-volume role. While his defensive positioning and hustle metrics remained positive, the lack of scoring gravity allowed the opposition to essentially ignore him. This uncharacteristic reluctance to attack in the half-court severely limited the team's ceiling during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 25.4m -15.1
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.8

Absolute perfection on offensive execution skyrocketed his value, as he capitalized on every single look the defense yielded. He operated strictly within the flow of the offense, punishing late closeouts without forcing a single bad shot. This flawless spot-up shooting provided immense spacing and stability for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 120.6%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 25.7m -15.3
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 19.1m
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

Errant shot selection and defensive lapses combined to plummet his net impact during a rough rotational stint. He forced the issue repeatedly from beyond the arc, coming up empty and fueling opponent transition opportunities with long rebounds. This erratic perimeter chucking completely derailed the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.4
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 19.1m -11.4
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.5

Strong off-ball activity and defensive disruption were nearly enough to offset a dreadful shooting performance. He consistently found iron on open perimeter looks, which allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for others. Ultimately, his inability to punish the defense as a floor spacer kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 18.1m -10.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Ruthless efficiency around the basket maximized his value during a highly productive burst off the bench. He served as an elite roll man, converting nearly every touch in the paint into high-percentage points. This decisive interior finishing provided a massive spark and stabilized the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 9.8m -5.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

A complete lack of involvement during his brief rotational cameo resulted in a notably negative rating. He failed to establish any physical presence or offensive gravity, essentially playing cardio basketball while on the floor. The team bled points during his short stint due to his inability to impact the game on either end.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +46.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 5.6m -3.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0