GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 29.7m
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Horrific shot selection inside the arc doomed his offensive value, as he routinely settled for low-percentage, contested jumpers. He managed to salvage some utility through active rebounding and solid defensive rotations (+4.1 Def), but the offensive inefficiency was glaring. The constant clanking of forced attempts stalled out multiple possessions, driving his net rating firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 29.7m -14.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 29.5m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

An uncharacteristically brutal shooting night snapped a long streak of elite efficiency, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from beyond the arc. Excellent rim-deterrence and positional awareness (+5.1 Def) kept him playable, but the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. His inability to find an alternative scoring rhythm ultimately sabotaged his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 43.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 29.5m -14.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Keyonte George 23.4m
17
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Despite struggling mightily to find the range from deep, his aggressive downhill attacks likely yielded crucial trips to the foul line to buoy his scoring efficiency. He managed the offense well enough to generate a strong box score metric (+11.3) without bleeding points on the other end. The ability to manufacture points through contact ultimately offset his cold perimeter touch, keeping his impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 23.4m -11.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cody Williams 20.8m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

A shocking disappearance from the offensive game plan saw his scoring production plummet compared to his recent aggressive baseline. Passive off-ball movement and a lack of overall urgency (+0.2 Hustle) allowed defenders to completely ignore him on the perimeter. While his individual defense held up fine, the offensive stagnation he caused tanked his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 20.8m -10.3
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Blake Hinson 16.1m
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Spot-up precision defined his minutes, as he punished defensive rotations with highly efficient perimeter execution. Though his overall usage took a steep dive from his recent hot streak, he maximized his limited touches without forcing bad looks. The steady spacing he provided kept the floor open, resulting in a quiet but firmly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 16.1m -8.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.4

Relentless downhill penetration defined his stellar outing, as he consistently collapsed the defense to generate high-value looks at the rim. His point-of-attack pressure was equally devastating (+5.6 Def), completely disrupting the opposing backcourt's rhythm. By avoiding the three-point line and playing to his strengths in the paint, he orchestrated a highly positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.6
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 32.5m -16.3
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.0

An absolute masterclass in two-way energy, his off-the-charts activity level (+8.8 Hustle) single-handedly swung the momentum of the game. Breaking out of a prolonged shooting slump, he capitalized on transition opportunities and knocked down open perimeter looks with supreme confidence. The combination of relentless ball pressure (+4.2 Def) and vastly improved shot selection culminated in a dominant, game-high net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +8.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 28.1m -14.1
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

A drastic regression in shot quality derailed his performance, as he repeatedly forced contested looks against set defenses. Dropping significantly from his recent high-scoring baseline, the sheer volume of his missed jumpers fueled opponent transition opportunities and tanked his net rating. Even a respectable defensive effort (+3.8 Def) couldn't mask the damage caused by his offensive tunnel vision.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 26.1m -13.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 15.2m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Transforming into a pure defensive specialist for the night, his elite off-ball disruption (+5.2 Def) completely scrambled the opponent's offensive sets. He sacrificed his own scoring volume entirely, instead focusing on diving for loose balls and generating extra possessions (+3.4 Hustle). This gritty, low-maintenance approach proved highly effective, securing a positive impact despite a near-total absence of offensive production.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 15.2m -7.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 9.5m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Operating strictly as a pick-and-pop decoy during his brief stint, his inability to connect from beyond the arc limited his offensive utility. While his defensive positioning (+2.1 Def) was surprisingly sturdy, the missed perimeter looks resulted in empty trips down the floor. The lack of scoring punch ultimately left his short shift hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 9.5m -4.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Completely neutralized in the paint, his inability to establish deep post position resulted in a rare scoreless outing that snapped a highly efficient streak. Without his usual interior scoring gravity, the offense bogged down significantly during his brief rotation. The lack of tangible paint production ultimately drove his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 9.1m -4.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 39.3m
24
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.1

Bey's aggressive offensive approach yielded a significant scoring surge above his recent baseline, driving a robust box score metric. Strong perimeter containment (+4.4 Def) and active hands (+3.5 Hustle) kept his overall impact in the green despite moderate shooting efficiency. The sheer volume of his creation ultimately defined his positive, albeit modest, net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 39.3m -19.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Herbert Jones 36.0m
17
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite a massive scoring leap compared to his recent slump, underlying mistakes completely erased his statistical gains. Active hands and solid point-of-attack defense (+3.4 Def) couldn't compensate for likely live-ball turnovers or poor transition execution that bled points. The impressive counting stats ultimately served as empty calories in a negative-impact performance.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 36.0m -18.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Bryce McGowens 33.3m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Perimeter volume defined this outing, as a heavy dose of outside attempts stretched the opposing defense and generated outsized value. His defensive rotations were exceptionally sharp (+4.6 Def), allowing him to stay highly positive even when his overall efficiency hovered around average. The willingness to confidently let it fly from deep masked any underlying playmaking deficiencies.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 33.3m -16.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S DeAndre Jordan 12.7m
3
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Elite rim protection and positional defense (+4.3 Def) anchored his minutes, but a complete lack of offensive gravity dragged down his final rating. Operating purely as a drop-coverage specialist, he secured the glass well without demanding touches. Unfortunately, the offensive stagnation during his shifts resulted in a slightly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 12.7m -6.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 11.1m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

A stark drop in usage limited his overall footprint, as he barely factored into the offensive game plan during his brief stint on the floor. Even with the severely reduced touch rate, he maintained a positive net impact by avoiding mistakes and moving the ball effectively. His inability to assert physical dominance inside ultimately capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 11.1m -5.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.4

Chilly perimeter shooting and forced attempts significantly dragged down his efficiency, snapping a recent stretch of red-hot scoring. Although he crashed the glass relentlessly and generated secondary opportunities (+3.5 Hustle), the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved too costly. His aggressive shot selection ultimately backfired, resulting in a steep negative impact despite the high activity level.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 34.5m -17.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
8
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.4

Defensive dominance (+7.2 Def) completely dictated his massive overall impact, as he suffocated opponents in the paint while maintaining elite efficiency on offense. A relentless motor (+3.5 Hustle) allowed him to generate extra possessions and connect plays without demanding the ball. Continuing a streak of highly efficient finishing, his low-mistake, high-activity profile was a masterclass in role-player execution.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 25.3m -12.5
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Derik Queen 18.9m
7
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Rebounding out of his recent shooting slump, he capitalized on high-percentage looks around the basket to stabilize his offensive value. Sturdy interior positioning (+3.2 Def) kept opponents at bay during his shifts, ensuring his minutes were a net positive. His ability to secure the glass and finish cleanly marked a refreshing return to fundamental frontcourt play.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 18.9m -9.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jordan Poole 15.2m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

A heavy reliance on perimeter isolation plays yielded decent shooting splits but failed to generate meaningful offensive flow for the unit. While his individual scoring efficiency bounced back from a recent slump, the overall impact cratered (-3.8 Total) due to a lack of playmaking and likely defensive breakdowns off the ball. The scoring punch simply couldn't outpace the negative equity of his empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 15.2m -7.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
Yves Missi 11.6m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Making the absolute most of a brief rotation stint, his defensive mobility (+3.9 Def) completely disrupted the opponent's interior rhythm. He capitalized on every touch with decisive, high-percentage finishes, avoiding the erratic play that has occasionally plagued his recent outings. This hyper-efficient, low-mistake performance perfectly illustrated how to maximize limited floor time.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 11.6m -5.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A disastrously brief cameo was defined entirely by rushed, ill-advised perimeter attempts that immediately resulted in empty possessions. Firing blanks from deep the moment he checked in, his shot selection actively harmed the team's momentum. The complete lack of supplementary hustle or defensive stats left his impact score firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely seeing the floor, his fleeting appearance was marred by poor defensive positioning (-0.5 Def) that immediately put the unit at a disadvantage. He managed to secure a single loose ball, but otherwise failed to make any tangible imprint on the game. The negative net rating reflects a quick stint where he was targeted rather than contributing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0