GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 37.3m
41
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+26.9

An absolute masterclass in shot creation and defensive intensity produced a monstrous net rating. He shattered his recent slump by hunting mismatches and burying contested pull-up threes to break the opponent's defensive shell. His relentless on-ball pressure suffocated opposing guards, turning defense into immediate transition offense.

Shooting
FG 15/29 (51.7%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 35.9%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +13.3
Raw total +44.7
Avg player in 37.3m -17.8
Impact +26.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
S Julius Randle 36.4m
23
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

A high-usage offensive approach yielded mixed results, as his interior bullying was offset by empty possessions from beyond the arc. He generated gravity in the post but occasionally stalled the offense by holding the ball too long against double teams. Solid rebounding and physical post defense kept his overall impact hovering just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 36.4m -17.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaden McDaniels 32.1m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Hyper-efficient finishing around the basket and lockdown perimeter defense drove a stellar two-way rating. He completely erased his primary matchup from the game plan while selectively punishing defensive gaps on the other end. Avoiding foul trouble allowed him to maintain his aggressive defensive posture throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 32.1m -15.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.0

Elite hustle metrics and disruptive perimeter defense completely salvaged a poor shooting night. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and dove for loose balls, generating extra possessions that swung momentum. His playmaking off the bounce kept the offense flowing even when his own jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +8.3
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 30.4m -14.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 26.5m
5
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

A drastic drop in offensive involvement limited his ability to punish switching defenses in the paint. Opponents successfully pulled him away from the rim, neutralizing his elite shot-blocking presence and exposing the interior. The lack of lob threats and screen-and-roll gravity resulted in a surprisingly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 26.5m -12.7
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 28.6m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Efficient scoring was effectively canceled out by a lack of defensive resistance and low-impact hustle plays. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently allowing straight-line drives that compromised the weak-side helpers. The inability to generate deflections or secure contested rebounds left his overall impact entirely flat.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 28.6m -13.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 22.9m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

A disastrous shooting performance from the perimeter torpedoed his offensive value and allowed defenders to pack the paint. He forced several heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum. Despite showing great resistance as a post defender, the empty offensive trips dragged his rating deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.9%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 22.9m -10.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him nearly invisible on that end of the floor, allowing his defender to act as a free safety. He passed up open looks to force heavily contested interior passes that disrupted the offensive flow. Sluggish closeouts on the perimeter further compounded his negative impact during his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 13.8m -6.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 12.1m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Defensive liabilities and erratic shot selection resulted in a highly damaging stint off the bench. He was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll actions, failing to fight through screens or stay in front of his man. Offensively, his tendency to over-dribble stalled ball movement and led to low-quality, contested perimeter heaves.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -3.5
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 12.1m -5.7
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jaylen Wells 28.0m
19
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Impact driven by elite floor spacing and high-value catch-and-shoot execution that broke him out of a recent slump. His off-ball gravity warped the defense, creating driving lanes for teammates while he capitalized on late closeouts. Active rotational defense added just enough value to keep his overall rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 28.0m -13.4
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.6

Poor perimeter efficiency and an inability to collapse the defense severely limited his playmaking effectiveness. He struggled to find a rhythm against drop coverage, settling for low-percentage floaters instead of aggressively attacking the paint. A few timely deflections padded his hustle metrics, but it wasn't nearly enough to salvage a heavily negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 23.6m -11.4
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ty Jerome 23.6m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Gritty point-of-attack pressure and relentless hustle plays kept his impact positive despite a rough shooting night. He compensated for missed jumpers by fighting through screens and disrupting passing lanes to ignite transition opportunities. His willingness to take on tough perimeter assignments proved far more valuable than his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 23.6m -11.3
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

An abrupt halt to his recent hot streak cratered his offensive value, as he bricked multiple contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for the rest of the unit. While he maintained decent defensive energy, the empty offensive possessions heavily dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 23.6m -11.3
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S GG Jackson 22.6m
12
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite positioning on defensive rebounds limited second-chance opportunities and anchored a strong positive impact. Despite a dip in his usual offensive usage, excellent shot selection ensured he maximized every touch without forcing the issue. His physical interior presence completely deterred opponents from challenging the rim.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 22.6m -10.9
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Rayan Rupert 25.2m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Decisive drives against closeouts sparked a surprise offensive breakout that provided a major two-way boost. His length on the wing bothered opposing ball-handlers, leading to deflections that fueled the fast break. By staying within the flow of the offense and taking high-percentage looks, he delivered a highly efficient performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 25.2m -12.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.8

Masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages and stifling perimeter defense completely overshadowed a subpar shooting performance. He spoon-fed teammates for easy finishes at the rim by consistently collapsing the defense. His relentless ball pressure frustrated opposing guards, generating a massive defensive impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 24.4m -11.7
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

Defensive lapses and poor rim protection dragged his net impact into the red, as opponents repeatedly targeted him in isolation. Offensively, he settled for contested mid-range jumpers rather than using his size to finish inside. A slight uptick in scoring volume couldn't mask the structural damage caused by his missed rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.7
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 24.1m -11.6
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Spencer 23.9m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

A lack of off-ball activity and minimal hustle contributions neutralized an otherwise efficient shooting display. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, allowing too much separation for opposing shooters. The low-impact minutes meant his solid offensive execution failed to move the needle in a meaningful way.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 23.9m -11.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Consistent two-way execution highlighted a highly effective stint, driven by smart cuts and timely weak-side help defense. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive drives to the basket, drawing fouls to maintain offensive momentum. His ability to switch across multiple positions seamlessly anchored the second unit's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 21.0m -10.0
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2