GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 30.2m
8
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-12.5

Clunky isolation attempts and missed perimeter jumpers drove a severe regression from his recent scoring tear. The offensive stagnation and likely turnover issues heavily outweighed his passable defensive metrics, resulting in a disastrous overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 30.2m -16.8
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.1

Off-ball movement and relentless hustle kept his impact highly positive despite a dip in raw scoring. He generated immense value through loose ball recoveries and smart secondary creation.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +8.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 27.8m -15.4
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 26.6m
25
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+22.5

Connecting on a barrage of three-pointers to shatter his usual scoring output resulted in an absolute masterclass in floor-stretching from the center position. Combined with elite rim protection and relentless hustle, this was a perfectly optimized two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +6.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 26.6m -14.9
Impact +22.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 26.3m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

Smooth shot creation carried the offensive load, though defensive bleeding capped his overall effectiveness. His ability to hit timely momentum-halting jumpers kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 26.3m -14.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 26.1m
12
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.9

Masterful connective playmaking and stifling perimeter defense fueled a massive positive impact. Relying on high-percentage interior looks rather than forcing outside shots allowed him to pick his spots perfectly.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 26.1m -14.5
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.2

Decisive downhill drives overpowered defenders, resulting in a massive spike in scoring efficiency. His physical point-of-attack defense perfectly complemented his aggressive offensive approach.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 25.4m -14.1
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Exceptional weak-side defensive rotations and disciplined closeouts drove his positive impact almost entirely. He deferred offensively but made his presence felt by completely shutting down his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +54.3
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 22.7m -12.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Jock Landale 17.7m
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Strong screen-and-roll execution allowed him to feast on the interior, though his insistence on taking four threes slightly dampened his efficiency. Solid drop-coverage defense ensured his frontcourt stint remained highly productive.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 17.7m -9.8
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Likely defensive miscommunications or hidden turnover costs bled value, undercutting his efficient spot-up shooting. He spaced the floor effectively but gave back just enough in transition to slip into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 16.4m -9.2
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 10.6m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Capitalizing on spot-up opportunities provided a quick offensive spark off the bench. Playing mistake-free basketball in his limited run ensured a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +64.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 10.6m -5.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Active on-ball pressure and a quick bucket maximized a tiny window of playing time. He played with high energy to ensure his brief stint was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Poor defensive positioning during a short rotational burst led to easy opponent looks. A missed perimeter shot further highlighted his inability to find a rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 3.6m -2.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Getting caught out of position defensively and remaining invisible offensively defined this brief end-of-bench appearance. He failed to make any tangible positive contribution to offset minor defensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 34.7m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Failing to convert a single two-point attempt severely undercut his overall effectiveness. While his hustle and defensive metrics remained strong, forcing contested interior looks derailed offensive momentum and tanked his value.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 34.7m -19.3
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Donovan Clingan 30.6m
15
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

Dominating the offensive glass and showcasing surprising playmaking flashes anchored his positive impact. However, a high volume of missed interior looks as a center limited his ceiling, preventing a good performance from becoming a truly dominant one.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 30.6m -17.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 36.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jrue Holiday 28.0m
23
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.0

Surgical point-of-attack defense and timely shot creation drove a highly productive shift. By consistently punishing defensive rotations from the perimeter, he maintained his recent high-level scoring output without sacrificing structural integrity.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 28.0m -15.7
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jerami Grant 26.1m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.2

Forcing contested perimeter looks to snap a cold streak completely destroyed his value tonight. While he tried to compensate with active hustle plays, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 26.1m -14.5
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kris Murray 4.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Cardio minutes defined this brief rotational stint, as he failed to register a single counting stat. The negative impact score stems entirely from defensive lapses and blown assignments during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Hidden turnover costs and transition defensive lapses plunged his overall impact into the red. The high offensive output and near-perfect shooting efficiency completely masked how much value he gave back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 91.6%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -52.7
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 30.0m -16.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.2

Settling for low-percentage jumpers rather than pressuring the rim derailed his offensive rhythm. The steep drop in his scoring average was a direct result of erratic decision-making that led to empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 24.1m -13.4
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Blake Wesley 19.6m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Aggressive rim pressure sparked a scoring surge, but defensive lapses and likely ball-security issues dragged his total impact down. The volume of missed interior looks prevented him from capitalizing fully on his increased offensive role.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 19.6m -10.9
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 18.3m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Generating extra possessions through loose-ball recoveries and relentless energy defined this performance. A massive spike in scoring compared to his recent average was simply a bonus on top of his disruptive defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +8.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 18.3m -10.2
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Wreaking havoc in passing lanes generated a stellar defensive impact score in limited action. Opportunistic scoring off turnovers maximized his value during a highly efficient rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 14.7m -8.3
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Failing to find the flow of the game during a brief cameo left him without any tangible offensive gravity. Minor defensive contributions couldn't mask the empty minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -84.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 5.8m -3.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Bricking three shots in under four minutes instantly tanked his impact score. This poor shot selection in garbage time highlighted a tendency to force the issue offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0