GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Chet Holmgren 37.7m
15
pts
21
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Absolute dominance as a weak-side rim protector completely altered the geometry of the opponent's offense. He paired elite shot deterrence with highly efficient, selective rim-running to generate a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +14.2
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 37.7m -21.8
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 35.9m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.4

Offensive hesitation and a string of forced, late-clock jumpers cratered his value on that end of the floor. Even a high level of defensive hustle couldn't mask the damage done by his poor shot selection and inability to finish at the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +6.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 35.9m -20.8
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
36
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+19.2

Relentless rim pressure and an elite ability to draw fouls offset a high volume of missed field goals. His disruptive length in the passing lanes sparked multiple fast breaks, cementing a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/29 (41.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 45.0%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +24.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +38.8
Avg player in 33.8m -19.6
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 28.0m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

Overzealous closeouts and reaching fouls put the opponent in the bonus early, severely punishing his overall grade. While he hit a couple of timely outside shots, his inability to defend without fouling negated any offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 28.0m -16.2
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.7

Masterful positional rebounding and quick-decision passing out of the short roll fueled a highly efficient offensive stretch. He consistently beat his man to loose balls, generating crucial extra possessions that drove his exceptional impact rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 25.0m -14.4
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Alex Caruso 28.4m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A surprising scoring outburst was undermined by a series of unforced passing errors that gifted the opposition easy transition points. Despite his usual point-of-attack tenacity, those live-ball turnovers kept his final score slightly below water.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 28.4m -16.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Taking charges and setting bone-crushing screens provided unseen value that perfectly complemented his scoring bump. His disciplined verticality at the rim deterred several drives, anchoring a very productive stint for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 25.9m -14.9
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 22.8m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Lethal spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates all night long. He maximized his touches by taking only high-value shots and executing flawless closeout attacks, driving a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 22.8m -13.1
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 19.2m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find soft spots in the zone, resulting in a highly efficient scoring burst. His smart off-ball movement kept the offense humming, though a couple of rookie mistakes on defensive switches limited his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 19.2m -11.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

An icy shooting night snapped his recent streak of efficiency, as he repeatedly clanked open corner looks. His offensive struggles bled into transition defense, where he was caught out of position on several leak-outs.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -77.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 8.4m -4.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 47.2m
39
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.6

Relentless shot-making from beyond the arc broke the opposing defense's back during a pivotal second-half run. He balanced high-volume creation with excellent ball security, ensuring his aggressive offensive output translated directly to a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 12/26 (46.2%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.1%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.2m
Offense +28.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +37.9
Avg player in 47.2m -27.3
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Christian Braun 45.2m
23
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite a strong offensive surge that well exceeded his recent scoring average, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive lapses and costly turnovers. The sheer volume of missed perimeter shots dragged down his efficiency down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.2m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 45.2m -26.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 44.6m
23
pts
17
reb
14
ast
Impact
-1.5

Uncharacteristic inefficiency from the floor defined this outing, with a barrage of missed contested looks at the rim severely dampening his overall value. While his playmaking generated high-quality looks for others, the sheer volume of empty possessions from his own misfires kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 9/25 (36.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.5
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 44.6m -25.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cameron Johnson 40.1m
7
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.2

A severe drop-off in scoring aggression left a massive void in the offense, as he struggled to find his rhythm against physical closeouts. His negative impact was compounded by giving up crucial offensive rebounds and committing poorly timed fouls that stalled any momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 40.1m -23.3
Impact -16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, struggling to create separation or apply any rim pressure. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off, bogging down the second-unit spacing and tanking his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 15.2m -8.8
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Sizzling perimeter shooting provided a much-needed scoring punch, yet his overall grade suffered due to defensive rotational errors. Getting caught ball-watching on multiple back-door cuts erased the value of his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 33.3m -19.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 28.5m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Snapped a streak of highly efficient shooting nights by forcing contested floaters in traffic. Despite solid point-of-attack defense, a cluster of live-ball turnovers in transition heavily penalized his final score.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 28.5m -16.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Ground the offense to a halt by clogging the paint without converting through contact. A couple of moving screens and slow defensive rotations in the pick-and-roll kept his brief appearance in the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 41.2%
Net Rtg -120.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 8.4m -4.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Barely saw the floor but managed to negatively impact the game through a quick pair of defensive breakdowns. Getting blown by on consecutive possessions during garbage time tanked his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0