GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 35.4m
18
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.4

Absolute dominance in the painted area completely altered the opponent's shot profile. He deterred countless drives through sheer verticality, while simultaneously feasting on lob opportunities created by hard dives to the rim. His ability to anchor the drop coverage without fouling was the defining factor of the night.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 35.4m -17.9
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Anthony Edwards 34.1m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Careless ball security and late defensive closeouts offset a brilliant perimeter shooting display. He surrendered nearly as many points via blow-bys and transition turnovers as he generated on offense. A string of forced passes into traffic during the third quarter prevented a true breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 34.1m -17.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Julius Randle 33.7m
17
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

Ball-stopping tendencies and forced isolation attempts against double-teams derailed the offensive rhythm. While he drew fouls, his insistence on backing down set defenses resulted in several stalled possessions and bad-pass turnovers. This stagnant approach allowed the opposition to easily set their transition defense.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 33.7m -17.0
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

Relentless ball pressure and elite screen navigation completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's timing. He capitalized on defensive chaos by leaking out for easy transition looks and burying open spot-up attempts. His chaotic energy in the passing lanes was the catalyst for a massive momentum shift.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 26.6m -13.4
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 21.3m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Constant foul trouble and poor navigation of off-ball screens severely limited his defensive effectiveness. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, yielding deep post position to stronger forwards. These defensive breakdowns negated any value derived from his opportunistic cutting.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 21.3m -10.8
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 27.3m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Smothering point-of-attack defense forced opposing guards into late-clock desperation heaves. He consistently beat his man to the spot, drawing crucial offensive fouls that swung possession. Offensively, his decisive straight-line drives punished scrambling closeouts effectively.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 27.3m -13.8
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Naz Reid 20.5m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A heavy volume of forced, contested three-pointers dragged down his offensive efficiency. He salvaged his overall impact by providing stout post defense and battling admirably on the defensive glass. Ultimately, his erratic shot selection balanced out his physical interior presence.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 20.5m -10.4
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Sluggish lateral movement made him a prime target in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points defensively. He struggled to close out on shooters in time, frequently giving up uncontested corner looks. His methodical playmaking could not overcome the defensive bleeding he caused.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 15.2m -7.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 13.1m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Wild drives into traffic and highly questionable shot selection completely short-circuited the second unit's offense. He routinely ignored open teammates in favor of highly contested floaters that led to long rebounds. This chaotic decision-making fueled an immediate opponent run.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -51.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.4
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 13.1m -6.6
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Rushed attempts early in the shot clock wasted valuable possessions during a brief stint. He failed to establish any defensive presence, getting easily bypassed on straight-line drives. This lack of composure on both ends quickly forced him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -142.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -3.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -3.7
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Over-aggressive closeouts resulted in costly blow-bys and compromised the team's defensive shell. He offered zero spacing value on offense, allowing his defender to freely pack the paint. A quick sequence of missed rotations highlighted his struggles to adapt to the game's pace.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -142.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 3.3m -1.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Executed his limited role perfectly by converting a timely backdoor cut. He maintained proper spacing and avoided defensive mistakes during his brief time on the floor. This quiet, mistake-free execution resulted in a marginally positive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -138.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.1m -1.6
Impact +0.4
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
+0.5

Active hands and quick defensive slides disrupted a pair of late-game isolation attempts. Though he failed to convert his lone offensive look, his commitment to staying in front of his man provided a slight defensive boost. His energetic closeouts prevented any easy perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -138.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 3.1m -1.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 36.2m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

Relentless activity on the offensive glass and in passing lanes fueled a massive hustle rating. He consistently punished mismatches in the post, generating high-quality looks that drove his positive impact. A stretch of key deflections in the third quarter perfectly encapsulated his two-way disruption.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 36.2m -18.3
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 30.4m
25
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Decisive downhill drives and excellent perimeter shot quality maximized his offensive footprint. He thrived by attacking closeouts instantly, rarely letting the defense reset. This aggressive, no-hesitation approach yielded highly efficient scoring without bogging down the offense.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 30.4m -15.3
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.7

Defensive lapses at the point of attack and poor transition containment erased much of his offensive production. While he created separation easily on the perimeter, he struggled to navigate screens on the other end. A series of costly fouls late in the shot clock kept his overall impact marginal.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 30.2m -15.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 29.8m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor shot selection derailed his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range jumpers against set defenses. Despite decent defensive metrics, his inability to find a rhythm offensively bogged down Toronto's spacing. This high-volume inefficiency ultimately stalled multiple scoring runs.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 36.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -44.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 29.8m -15.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 29.1m
9
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.9

Elite rim protection and disciplined drop coverage anchored a stellar defensive rating. He completely neutralized dribble penetration, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. His flawless execution as a roll man ensured maximum efficiency on limited touches.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 29.1m -14.7
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Timely weak-side rotations and active hands in the passing lanes drove a surprisingly robust defensive impact. He excelled as a connective passer, keeping the ball moving and finding cutters against zone looks. His constant off-ball movement created easy finishing opportunities around the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 23.6m -12.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

Hesitancy on the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. Though he competed hard defensively, his lack of offensive gravity severely damaged the floor spacing. A pair of unforced passing errors during a crucial second-quarter stretch highlighted his struggles.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 30.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 17.4m -8.8
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 17.0m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.3

Errant finishing at the rim and a string of live-ball turnovers completely cratered his value. He played with commendable energy, but rushed decisions in traffic consistently sparked opponent fast breaks. His inability to convert in the paint made him a liability in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -58.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -6.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense -1.4
Raw total -3.8
Avg player in 17.0m -8.5
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

A quiet stint characterized by missed rotations and a failure to secure contested rebounds. He managed to stay afloat by executing basic defensive assignments, but offered little resistance against physical drivers. His overall footprint remained flat due to an inability to generate meaningful advantages.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 9.5m -4.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Complete offensive passivity rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor. He provided solid positional defense, but his reluctance to even look at the basket allowed his matchup to roam freely as a help defender. This lack of aggression ultimately dragged down the second unit's offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 9.1m -4.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Immediate floor-stretching gravity opened up driving lanes the moment he checked in. He capitalized on broken plays by relocating quickly to the corners, punishing defensive miscommunications. This brief injection of high-quality shot creation provided a swift offensive spark.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 3.8m -1.9
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Hard rim-runs and physical screen-setting instantly tilted the geometry of the half-court offense. He commanded attention in the paint, which freed up shooters on the perimeter. A pair of crucial box-outs in heavy traffic secured extra possessions during a tight window.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 3.8m -1.9
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0