GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 31.6m
18
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Inefficient volume shooting and a high rate of empty possessions suppressed what could have been a standout performance. He frequently forced the issue against set defenses, resulting in low-quality attempts that killed offensive momentum. Despite showing flashes of brilliant shot creation in the second quarter, the negative weight of his missed attempts kept his overall value flat.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 31.6m -17.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Keyonte George 30.2m
36
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.5

A masterclass in two-way efficiency, combining lethal perimeter shot-making with suffocating point-of-attack defense. He generated massive positive value by consistently beating his primary defender off the dribble and making the right reads without turning the ball over. His relentless ball pressure during a pivotal third-quarter run completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +4.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 30.2m -16.8
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyle Filipowski 29.4m
19
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.8

Excellent spatial awareness and high-IQ passing out of the high post drove a highly positive overall rating. He consistently punished defensive overreactions by finding cutters, maximizing the value of his touches without forcing bad shots. A crucial stretch of offensive rebounding in the fourth quarter highlighted his ability to generate extra possessions cleanly.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 29.4m -16.3
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Elijah Harkless 26.9m
2
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

An inability to convert open looks completely tanked his impact score, as he served as an offensive black hole. Defenders aggressively sagged off him to clog the paint, which stalled the entire offensive system whenever he touched the ball. Even though he generated several deflections through pure hustle, the sheer cost of his missed shots and spacing issues was ruinous.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 26.9m -14.9
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cody Williams 11.0m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Careless ball security during his brief time on the floor resulted in a surprisingly negative rating for a low-usage player. He telegraphed multiple passes that were easily jumped by the defense, directly leading to transition points the other way. His defensive positioning was sound, but the live-ball turnovers were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 11.0m -6.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Hot perimeter shooting was heavily offset by defensive liabilities and poor closeouts that allowed easy blow-bys. Opponents specifically targeted him in isolation, forcing rotation cascades that led to high-value scoring opportunities. He provided crucial floor spacing, but the defensive bleeding and a couple of careless passing errors flattened his net value.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 25.9m -14.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 23.4m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Strong rotational defense and active hands were undone by a series of frustrating offensive fouls and illegal screens. He repeatedly derailed half-court sets by moving early on dribble hand-offs, racking up hidden negative penalties. While his weak-side rim deterrence was excellent, the constant turnover costs kept his net impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 23.4m -12.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Shot selection was the primary culprit behind his deeply negative rating, as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range pull-ups early in the clock. His offensive tunnel vision stalled ball movement and allowed the defense to easily reset. A few solid hustle plays on the glass did little to mitigate the damage caused by his highly inefficient volume.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 22.9m -12.7
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.0

Over-dribbling and poor pick-and-roll reads severely penalized his rating despite decent scoring efficiency. He frequently drove into the teeth of the defense without an exit plan, resulting in momentum-killing turnovers that fueled the opposition. His inability to stay in front of his man at the point of attack further compounded his negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 20.3m -11.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless work on the interior yielded a strong positive impact, driven largely by his ability to secure traffic rebounds without committing loose-ball fouls. He provided a reliable release valve in the dunker spot, converting dump-off passes with high efficiency. His physical presence effectively deterred drives during his second-half rotation, anchoring the interior defense perfectly.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 18.4m -10.1
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 37.6m
45
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.7

Absolute offensive mastery against drop coverage drove a massive positive rating, as he manipulated screens perfectly to find his spots. While high usage naturally brought a few turnover penalties, his pristine shot selection and elite conversion rate easily outpaced the negative costs. His relentless hunting of mismatches down the stretch completely broke the opposing defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 8/13 (61.5%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 92.7%
USG% 37.2%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +29.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 37.6m -20.9
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
S Nikola Jokić 36.4m
22
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.2

Sloppy passing sequences and uncharacteristic offensive fouls severely depressed what should have been a dominant statistical profile. Utah's aggressive stunting in the pick-and-roll forced him into tight passing windows, resulting in multiple costly giveaways that dragged down his overall rating. He still provided strong positional defense, but the high turnover penalty masked his typical playmaking brilliance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 36.4m -20.2
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Christian Braun 32.5m
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Despite generating excellent defensive value through aggressive perimeter ball pressure, his overall impact was completely erased by offensive sloppiness. A cluster of live-ball turnovers in the second half directly fueled opponent transition opportunities. His inability to execute clean entries against Utah's switching scheme proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 32.5m -18.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Poor shot selection from the perimeter acted as an anchor on his overall rating, as he frequently settled for contested looks early in the shot clock. A tendency to bite on pump fakes also led to damaging foul costs on the defensive end. His inability to run defenders off the three-point line during the third quarter highlighted his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 29.0m -16.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Dominated the physical battle inside, generating a highly positive net impact through sheer interior efficiency and foul-drawing. He consistently sealed his man deep in the paint during a crucial second-quarter stretch, punishing the undersized frontcourt. Minimal mistakes and zero forced shots allowed his positive contributions to translate directly to the bottom line.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 17.2m -9.5
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 31.7m
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.0

Elite hustle metrics were completely overshadowed by disastrous decision-making with the ball in his hands. A string of offensive fouls and reckless drives into heavy traffic during the first half severely punished his overall rating. He brought undeniable energy, but his lack of control in the half-court offense proved to be a major detriment.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 31.7m -17.7
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.2

Brick-laying from the outside and forced isolation attempts resulted in a catastrophic net impact score. He repeatedly derailed offensive momentum by ignoring open teammates to launch heavily contested jumpers in transition. The sheer volume of empty possessions and long rebounds given up completely negated his surprisingly decent weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 31.5m -17.4
Impact -16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

A relatively quiet stint was marred by a few costly defensive breakdowns that dragged his impact into the red. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, allowing his assignment to find open shooting pockets on multiple possessions. While offensively efficient when called upon, his inability to contain dribble penetration neutralized his value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 18.6m -10.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 5.7m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Brief rotational minutes yielded a perfectly neutral impact, as he executed his basic assignments without committing egregious errors. A quick catch-and-shoot conversion provided a momentary spark, but he wasn't on the floor long enough to influence the broader game flow. Kept the ball moving and avoided the turnover bug during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.7m -3.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0