GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 30.1m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.8

A staggering negative impact score was driven by passive offensive play and an inability to convert the few looks he took. He failed to leave a footprint in the hustle or defensive categories, allowing the opposition to dominate his minutes. This was a remarkably empty performance that severely handicapped his unit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.6%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 30.1m -19.3
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ace Bailey 29.4m
23
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-volume scoring drove a massive box score rating, but his overall impact was heavily muted by a lack of defensive and hustle contributions. He operated primarily as a one-dimensional scorer, giving back much of his offensive value through poor rotations or unseen foul costs. The scoring surge masked a relatively hollow all-around performance.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 29.4m -18.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Isaiah Collier 27.4m
11
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.4

Despite decent hustle numbers, his overall impact was torpedoed by inefficient scoring and likely unseen negative plays like live-ball turnovers. He struggled to run the offense cleanly, giving away possessions that negated his playmaking efforts. The poor shot quality and sloppy execution defined his deeply negative stint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 27.4m -17.6
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S John Konchar 26.1m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Elite defensive metrics and relentless hustle plays completely overshadowed a dismal shooting night. He generated immense value by blowing up opponent actions and securing extra possessions, proving that scoring isn't required to control a game. His defensive anchoring was the sole driver of his strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.6
Defense +13.9
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 26.1m -16.6
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 18.2m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Maintained his elite finishing streak with pristine shot selection, ensuring every offensive touch was maximized. However, a lack of defensive disruption kept his overall impact hovering just above neutral. His value was strictly tied to efficient scoring rather than two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 18.2m -11.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

High-volume scoring masked underlying inefficiencies, as his overall impact slipped into the negative due to poor defensive execution. He hunted his own shot effectively but failed to elevate the unit, giving back points on the other end through missed rotations. The one-sided nature of his game limited his actual effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 25.2m -16.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.1

A spectacular two-way performance defined by elite defensive disruption and highly active hustle metrics. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by taking higher-quality looks, but it was his relentless energy on the margins that drove his massive positive rating. He completely dictated the physical tone of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense +10.6
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 20.6m -13.3
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
Kevin Love 20.2m
6
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Surprisingly robust defensive positioning helped mitigate a sluggish offensive showing. He struggled to find his stroke or generate meaningful box score value, but his veteran savvy on the defensive glass and in rotations prevented a total collapse. The lack of scoring punch and poor shot selection ultimately kept him in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +9.2
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 20.2m -12.9
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Blake Hinson 18.0m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

A disastrous shooting performance from the perimeter resulted in a heavily negative box score impact. He offered virtually no resistance or hustle to make up for the wasted offensive possessions, making him a pure liability on the floor. The sheer volume of empty outside looks cratered his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.4%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 18.0m -11.6
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.3

Lethal perimeter marksmanship fueled a massive offensive surge, stretching the defense and creating high-value possessions. While his defensive metrics were modest, the sheer efficiency of his outside shooting carried his overall impact. He perfectly executed his role as a floor-spacing specialist to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 15.3m -9.8
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Absolute perfection around the rim allowed him to generate immense value in a highly condensed window of playing time. He capitalized on every single touch, bullying his matchups inside without forcing bad looks. This hyper-efficient interior dominance drove a stellar positive impact despite minimal defensive stats.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 9.6m -6.1
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 34.2m
42
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+18.1

Explosive shot-making fueled a massive box score rating, as he doubled his recent scoring average on highly efficient perimeter execution. However, his total impact was severely dragged down by unseen negatives, likely a string of live-ball turnovers or foul costs that gave points back. The sheer volume of high-value buckets ultimately kept his net rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 14/20 (70.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.6%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +39.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +40.0
Avg player in 34.2m -21.9
Impact +18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 33.3m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.7

Elite defensive metrics and high-activity hustle plays elevated his overall rating far beyond his standard scoring output. Dominating the interior matchups allowed him to generate significant value, though unseen mistakes like turnovers likely capped his total impact. His two-way physical presence ultimately set a dominant tone for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +6.5
Defense +13.4
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 33.3m -21.3
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dejounte Murray 25.8m
17
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.8

Outstanding defensive playmaking and relentless hustle masked a somewhat inefficient shooting performance from beyond the arc. He generated value by disrupting passing lanes and creating transition opportunities rather than relying on half-court execution. This two-way activity allowed him to post a solid positive impact despite wasting possessions on missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +9.7
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 25.8m -16.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 6
S Herbert Jones 25.6m
8
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.2

Strong defensive positioning and active hustle metrics kept his head above water, offsetting a low-volume offensive night. While his shot selection was pristine when he did pull the trigger, the lack of overall offensive aggression limited his ceiling. His value was entirely tethered to doing the dirty work on the margins and disrupting passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 25.6m -16.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeAndre Jordan 13.0m
4
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

A complete lack of hustle stats and minimal offensive involvement resulted in a negative overall impact despite not missing a shot. He failed to generate any extra possessions or disrupt the opponent's rhythm during his brief stint, while likely bleeding value through poor defensive rotations. The inability to impact the game beyond basic positioning ultimately sank his rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 13.0m -8.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Bricklaying from the perimeter severely damaged his offensive rating, wasting multiple possessions on low-quality looks. While he provided some resistance on the defensive end, the lack of floor spacing and offensive flow dragged down his overall score. His inability to convert from deep was the primary anchor on his net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 30.9m -19.8
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Continued his streak of highly efficient interior finishing, but failed to generate enough overall volume to swing the game. A lack of defensive dominance and minimal playmaking restricted his ability to post a positive total impact. He was a reliable finisher when called upon, yet largely invisible in the broader flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 24.8m -15.9
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.8

Poor shot selection and a significant drop in scoring efficiency cratered his offensive value. Although he tried to compensate with active defensive rotations and hustle plays, the empty possessions on offense were too costly to overcome. The inability to find an offensive rhythm and likely turnover issues ultimately defined his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 22.2m -14.3
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Derik Queen 20.1m
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Inefficient finishing around the rim and negative defensive metrics compounded to sink his overall evaluation. He struggled to establish a physical presence, allowing opponents to exploit his matchups while wasting offensive touches. The combination of missed shots and defensive lapses proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 20.1m -12.8
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Poole 10.2m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

A complete lack of offensive rhythm and nonexistent defensive resistance led to a highly detrimental stint on the floor. He failed to generate any meaningful hustle stats, simply floating through possessions without impacting the action. The stark drop in scoring volume and poor shot quality highlighted a deeply disengaged performance.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 10.2m -6.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0