GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 38.8m
25
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

Bogged down the offense with heavy isolation usage and inefficient mid-range pull-ups. While he competed hard on loose balls, the sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed his positive defensive contributions. His shot selection bailed out the defense time and time again.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 38.8m -20.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Christian Braun 37.6m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Failed to stretch the floor, allowing defenders to sag into the paint and muck up driving lanes. Despite solid finishing on cuts, the lack of perimeter gravity and low hustle metrics slightly dragged down his net value. His reluctance to fire from deep stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 37.6m -19.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nikola Jokić 37.1m
35
pts
13
reb
9
ast
Impact
+22.8

Systematically dismantled the opposing frontcourt with surgical post-ups and elite defensive rebounding. His sheer volume of high-quality offensive creation dictated the entire tempo of the game. He manipulated double-teams flawlessly to generate massive positive value across all metrics.

Shooting
FG 15/26 (57.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +12.5
Raw total +42.3
Avg player in 37.1m -19.5
Impact +22.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Cameron Johnson 23.2m
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.2

An absolute cratering of offensive value driven by forced, contested jumpers that fueled opponent transition attacks. Even a high rate of hustle plays couldn't salvage the damage done by his shooting zeroes. His inability to punish closeouts completely derailed the offensive flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +5.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 23.2m -12.2
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Bled value on the defensive end due to missed rotations and poor closeouts on the perimeter. The inability to knock down open looks compounded his struggles, making him a clear liability during his stint. He was repeatedly targeted in high pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.5
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 16.9m -8.9
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Punished late closeouts with lethal catch-and-shoot precision to provide a massive bench spark. His decisive shot selection and timely defensive rotations yielded a highly efficient boost to the wing rotation. He served as the perfect pressure-release valve for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 93.6%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 33.5m -17.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Bruce Brown 28.1m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Faded into the background offensively, failing to apply his usual rim pressure or secondary playmaking. A surprising lack of defensive disruption and hustle plays resulted in a starkly negative overall impact. He struggled to find his footing against switch-heavy defensive schemes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 28.1m -14.7
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Completely neutralized by quicker bigs who forced him out of his preferred post-up zones. The inability to establish deep position led to a massive drop-off in his usual offensive production. His lack of foot speed was exploited in drop coverage, sinking his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 9.6m -5.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a steadying presence as a secondary ball-handler during a brief second-quarter stint. Took only high-percentage looks, ensuring his limited minutes were a net positive. He kept the offense organized when the primary creators rested.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 6.4m -3.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 6.2m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Offered zero resistance on the glass and failed to generate any secondary scoring during a brief rotational stint. His minutes were defined by empty offensive trips and a lack of physical presence in the paint. He was easily displaced by stronger bigs on the block.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 6.2m -3.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Thrown into garbage time without enough runway to influence the game. A quick defensive lapse in transition accounted for the slight negative grade.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
KJ Simpson 1.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Burned brief end-of-bench minutes primarily just running out the clock. Registered a minor negative impact due to a missed defensive assignment on the final possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 39.0m
21
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.1

High-volume isolation sets yielded a scoring bounce-back, but forced jumpers and empty possessions dragged his net impact into the red. He settled for contested perimeter looks rather than consistently attacking the teeth of the defense. The sheer number of inefficient offensive trips outweighed his individual shot-making.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 39.0m -20.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 37.6m
7
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.2

Elite rim deterrence and bruising screen-setting generated massive value despite a significant dip in scoring volume. He completely anchored the defensive scheme, shutting down the paint and forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. His impact was defined entirely by verticality and positioning rather than offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +5.8
Defense +11.0
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 37.6m -19.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.3

Spaced the floor flawlessly with catch-and-shoot daggers that punished defensive rotations. His perimeter gravity and active hands in passing lanes drove a highly efficient two-way performance. He capitalized perfectly on the spacing created by the frontcourt to break the opposing zone.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 35.7m -18.8
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaden McDaniels 32.7m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

High offensive efficiency inside the arc was completely negated by empty perimeter possessions and likely defensive miscommunications. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint against secondary actions. The overall impact slipped into the red despite his strong finishing at the rim.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 32.7m -17.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 32.1m
14
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.7

Passive offensive stretches broke his recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring, severely limiting his usual downhill gravity. He salvaged some value through physical interior defense and active rebounding, but the lack of rim pressure capped his ceiling. A stark drop in shot creation ultimately drove his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 32.1m -16.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Naz Reid 26.1m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Struggled to find rhythm against physical interior defense, settling for contested perimeter looks that killed offensive momentum. The lack of scoring efficiency completely negated his otherwise solid rim-protection metrics. Poor shot selection was the primary culprit for the steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 26.1m -13.8
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 21.2m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.7

A stark drop in aggression limited his usual downhill rim pressure and offensive initiation. While he remained disciplined defensively, the lack of playmaking creation left his overall impact slightly negative. He faded into the background during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 21.2m -11.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Bones Hyland 15.6m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.9

Sparked a massive offensive surge with decisive, zero-hesitation perimeter shot creation that overwhelmed the opposing second unit. His explosive scoring efficiency in limited minutes completely flipped the momentum of the game. He thrived as the primary initiator during a dominant bench stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.2
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 15.6m -8.2
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0