GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
26
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.2

Lethal shot-making from the perimeter stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point, opening up the floor for the entire unit. He paired this offensive explosion with disciplined closeouts on shooters, driving a stellar defensive rating. His ability to hit contested catch-and-shoot daggers during a pivotal third-quarter run cemented his massive net positive score.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 30.4m -14.4
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nolan Traore 29.7m
17
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Forced far too many contested perimeter shots early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense and sparking opponent fast breaks. His increased scoring volume was a mirage that hid multiple blown defensive assignments during transition sequences. Despite finding his touch inside the arc, his poor decision-making from deep tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 29.7m -14.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Day'Ron Sharpe 28.0m
7
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

Plagued by illegal screens and offensive fouls that repeatedly killed Brooklyn's momentum in the half-court. While he battled admirably on the interior to generate extra possessions, his inability to cleanly execute dribble hand-offs resulted in back-breaking turnovers. The sheer volume of his mistakes completely overshadowed his solid rim protection.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 28.0m -13.3
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Noah Clowney 22.6m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Impact suffered heavily from biting on pump fakes and committing cheap fouls that put the opponent in the bonus early. Despite showing excellent hustle in tracking down loose balls, his struggles to space the floor effectively clogged the driving lanes. A lack of discipline in drop coverage ultimately outweighed his high-energy plays.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 22.6m -10.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Terance Mann 14.4m
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

Complete offensive passivity allowed his defender to roam freely and double-team other ball handlers. He compounded this lack of spacing by getting consistently blown by at the point of attack, forcing the defense into scramble mode. A brutal shift defined by a total inability to assert his will on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -72.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 14.4m -6.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

A complete lack of rebounding presence from the wing position severely hurt his team's ability to finish defensive possessions. While he moved the ball well and played passing lanes effectively, his reluctance to look for his own shot allowed the defense to sag off him entirely. His passivity created a spacing nightmare that dragged down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.7%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 32.8m -15.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 26.8m
23
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.8

Exploited slower matchups on the perimeter by confidently stepping into his outside shot and stretching the floor. His decisive playmaking out of the short roll punished double-teams and generated wide-open corner looks for teammates. This breakout performance was defined by his sheer offensive gravity and smart positional defending.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 26.8m -12.8
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Grant Nelson 20.0m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.3

Completely changed the complexion of the game with his elite weak-side rim protection and switchability onto smaller guards. He capitalized on high-quality shot selection, strictly taking what the defense gave him on decisive cuts to the basket. His defensive versatility anchored a massive second-quarter run that blew the game wide open.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.4
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 20.0m -9.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
Ben Saraf 18.3m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.3

Derailed several offensive sets by settling for heavily contested jumpers early in the clock. His inability to break down his primary defender forced the offense into stagnant, isolation-heavy possessions. The resulting long rebounds directly fueled the opponent's transition attack, sinking his net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 18.3m -8.6
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 16.9m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Struggled with spatial awareness on the offensive end, frequently clogging driving lanes and disrupting the team's half-court flow. Although he provided solid resistance on the ball defensively, his tendency to gamble for steals compromised the backline rotation. A quiet scoring night combined with poor offensive positioning resulted in a net negative shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 16.9m -8.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 36.4m
22
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.2

Scoring volume and playmaking completely masked how much he gave back through careless perimeter turnovers and defensive lapses. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in isolation during a crucial third-quarter stretch, erasing the value of his offensive creation. His lack of transition hustle severely damaged his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 36.4m -17.3
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jarrett Allen 31.8m
20
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.3

Completely dominated the paint on both ends, generating a massive defensive rating through elite rim protection and timely weak-side blocks. His high-percentage finishing in the pick-and-roll punished drop coverages repeatedly. A masterclass in vertical spacing and defensive anchoring that set the tone for the entire game.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +10.1
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 31.8m -15.2
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 27.8m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Perimeter shooting provided a minor lift, but his overall impact plummeted due to costly live-ball turnovers in transition. He struggled to navigate screens against quicker guards, which compromised Cleveland's defensive shell despite his active hands.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 27.8m -13.2
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sam Merrill 27.4m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Off-ball movement and elite shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive showing, breaking him out of a recent shooting slump. He generated immense gravity coming off pin-down screens, which opened up driving lanes for teammates. Incredible hustle metrics from saving loose balls perfectly masked his slight defensive limitations on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +38.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +7.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.4m -13.0
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Evan Mobley 26.9m
17
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Anchored the interior with exceptional rotational defense and rim deterrence. His ability to secure contested defensive rebounds fueled Cleveland's transition attack and sustained his high impact rating. Continuing a highly efficient stretch, he capitalized on deep post position against smaller defenders.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 26.9m -12.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Keon Ellis 31.5m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Defensive intensity was the absolute defining factor here, as he completely locked down the perimeter and blew up multiple dribble hand-offs. Even with his scoring output dropping significantly, his relentless ball pressure and deflections created a massive positive swing. He sacrificed his own offense to play a flawless role as a defensive stopper.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +12.5
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 31.5m -15.0
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 5
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

Controlled the tempo beautifully as a floor general, making high-value reads out of the pick-and-roll to generate easy looks. His point-of-attack defense disrupted the opposing offense's rhythm and forced several late-clock situations. This was a massive step up in offensive decision-making compared to his recent sluggish stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 25.3m -12.1
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Stagnant offensive possessions and poor shot selection at the rim dragged down his overall rating. While he showed flashes of active hands on defense, his inability to initiate clean sets led to empty trips and opponent transition opportunities. He struggled to find any rhythm when forced to create late in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 18.0m -8.6
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Found himself out of position on several defensive rebounding opportunities, allowing costly second-chance points. His tendency to settle for contested outside jumpers rather than rolling hard to the rim short-circuited the second unit's spacing. A largely forgettable stint defined by defensive mistimings.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -44.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 10.3m -4.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Rushed his attempts around the basket, failing to capitalize on the few offensive touches he received during a brief rotation spot. He provided a slight bump in defensive energy, but committing two quick fouls negated any momentum he built. Ultimately, his erratic offensive pacing kept him from making a positive mark.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 4.6m -2.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0