GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Catching fire from beyond the arc provided a massive scoring jolt, yet his overall impact slipped into the negative due to likely defensive breakdowns in the backcourt. He was relentlessly hunted in switch situations, surrendering easy angles to the rim that offset his perimeter barrage.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 31.3m -17.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 28.3m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Sinking timely perimeter shots boosted his offensive profile, but a distinct inability to contain dribble penetration proved costly. Opposing guards routinely targeted him in isolation sequences, bleeding points at a rate that completely overshadowed his marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 28.3m -15.6
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Dunn 26.5m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite capitalizing on spot-up opportunities with excellent efficiency, defensive miscommunications off the ball dragged his overall rating into the red. He brought commendable energy to 50/50 balls, but getting caught out of position during opponent transition runs negated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 26.5m -14.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Green 23.8m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.6

A catastrophic shot-selection profile completely derailed the offense, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. While he showed surprising resistance at the point of attack defensively, the sheer volume of wasted possessions and resulting long rebounds created a massive deficit.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -7.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 23.8m -13.0
Impact -15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Mark Williams 13.3m
4
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Dominating the glass wasn't enough to salvage a shift plagued by rushed looks in the paint and sluggish pick-and-roll coverages. His usual interior touch abandoned him, and getting repeatedly sealed off by opposing bigs in the restricted area drove his negative defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 13.3m -7.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 34.3m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

An absolute clinic in weak-side rim protection anchored the team's defensive scheme and suffocated opponent drives. He paired this elite rim deterrence with flawless rim-running efficiency, serving as the perfect low-usage, high-leverage connector on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +10.5
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 34.3m -18.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
28
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.2

Unapologetic volume shooting yielded mixed efficiency, but the constant threat of his perimeter release warped the opposing defense and opened up driving lanes for teammates. He managed to stay engaged on the margins with timely deflections, ensuring his aggressive gunning resulted in a net positive for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 9/24 (37.5%)
3PT 6/16 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 39.1%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 31.0m -16.9
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Punishing late closeouts with confident perimeter strokes made him a highly effective floor spacer in the half-court. He compounded this offensive efficiency by maintaining strict verticality in the paint, deterring slashers without committing costly fouls.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +47.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 20.7m -11.4
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Amir Coffey 17.1m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Flawless shot execution on limited touches provided a reliable safety valve when the primary actions broke down. He played within himself, making quick decisions and executing sound defensive rotations to quietly stabilize the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +59.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 17.1m -9.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Tenacious on-ball pressure completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation during his brief stint. Even with a quiet shooting night, his ability to blow up dribble hand-offs and generate transition opportunities through sheer hustle cemented a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 13.6m -7.4
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 39.3m
41
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+19.3

Absolute mastery of defensive coverages allowed him to generate premium looks from the perimeter all night. His shot selection was impeccable, punishing drop coverages with lethal step-backs while simultaneously providing superb rotational defense to fuel a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 78.0%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +30.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +40.8
Avg player in 39.3m -21.5
Impact +19.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Austin Reaves 36.4m
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

A noticeable dip in shot-making quality cratered his overall effectiveness, as forced drives into traffic led to wasted possessions. He tried to compensate with relentless off-ball movement and secondary rim contests, but the offensive inefficiency was too steep a hole to climb out of.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 36.4m -19.9
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S LeBron James 34.7m
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.5

Settling for perimeter jumpers dragged down his efficiency, as clanking multiple attempts from deep stunted the offense's rhythm. While his activity level remained high—evidenced by strong hustle metrics from chasing down loose balls—the sheer volume of empty half-court possessions ultimately flattened his net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +5.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 34.7m -19.1
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
S Marcus Smart 31.0m
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite a massive scoring surge compared to his recent slump, his overall footprint remained negative due to likely live-ball turnovers and transition defensive lapses. His aggressive point-of-attack pressure yielded solid defensive metrics, but it wasn't enough to overcome the costly empty possessions he orchestrated.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 31.0m -17.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 22.6m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Extreme passivity in the pick-and-roll completely neutralized his offensive gravity, snapping a streak of highly efficient scoring performances. He still managed to execute his drop-coverage assignments effectively to salvage some defensive value, but the lack of rim pressure severely handicapped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -48.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 22.6m -12.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 27.8m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Timely cuts and aggressive closeouts defined a highly productive shift that far exceeded his recent offensive baselines. Even with a few errant perimeter attempts, his willingness to do the dirty work on the glass and in passing lanes drove a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 27.8m -15.3
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 21.3m
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Vertical spacing and timely rim runs kept the defense honest, even with a significant drop in his usual scoring output. He anchored the second-unit defense by altering shots at the summit, ensuring his minutes were a net positive despite a lower usage rate.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 21.3m -11.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Luke Kennard 21.0m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Passing up open perimeter looks limited his spacing value, turning what could have been a highly impactful stint into a perfectly neutral one. He was surprisingly effective navigating screens on the defensive end, keeping his overall footprint out of the red despite the lack of offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 21.0m -11.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

A disastrously brief stint was marred by complete offensive invisibility and an inability to disrupt the opponent's rhythm. Failing to register a single hustle play or shot attempt meant his presence on the floor actively drained the team's momentum during a critical transitional stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -166.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 5.9m -3.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

A literal one-second cameo at the end of a quarter offered zero opportunity to influence the game in either direction. He was deployed strictly for situational spacing or inbound defense before immediately returning to the bench.

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