GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
38
pts
16
reb
3
ast
Impact
+34.2

Completely broke the opponent's offensive geometry with historic rim protection and terrifying closeout speed. An overwhelming third-quarter stretch where he blocked three shots and immediately trailed for transition threes cemented a legendary two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +31.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense +14.9
Raw total +55.1
Avg player in 38.9m -20.9
Impact +34.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 34.8m
11
pts
1
reb
12
ast
Impact
-0.7

Elite playmaking and high-motor hustle plays were dragged down by a complete lack of scoring gravity, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the paint. His reluctance to attack the rim in the final frame allowed the defense to key in entirely on his passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 34.8m -18.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S De'Aaron Fox 32.4m
29
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

Relentless downhill pressure compromised the opposing defense all night, forcing over-helps that generated wide-open looks. His point-of-attack defense against the primary ball handler set a physical tone that disrupted the opposing team's initiation.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 32.4m -17.6
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite strong individual defensive metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to untimely turnovers when attacking closeouts. A failure to secure long defensive rebounds in the fourth quarter gave away extra possessions that proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 30.7m -16.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Devin Vassell 30.5m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.5

Settled for heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, which stunted the team's offensive flow. His negative impact was exacerbated by losing his man on backdoor cuts during a pivotal third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 30.5m -16.6
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Poor shot selection derailed his shift, as he repeatedly forced wild drives into heavy traffic rather than moving the ball. A lack of transition defensive awareness allowed easy run-outs that penalized his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 21.9m -11.9
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 20.4m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Struggled to navigate ball screens, consistently getting caught on picks and forcing the bigs into vulnerable drop coverages. The offensive rhythm stagnated during his shifts because he held the ball too long probing for angles that never materialized.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 20.4m -11.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Provided excellent weak-side rim protection, but his offensive limitations severely cramped the floor for the primary creators. The defense completely ignored him on the perimeter, creating a 4-on-5 halfcourt environment that bogged down the scoring.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 19.7m -10.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Executed his role perfectly in limited action by setting bone-crushing screens that freed up the guards. He maintained verticality well on defense, altering a couple of crucial shots at the rim to secure a positive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 8.4m -4.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Stepped onto the court strictly for mop-up duty as the clock expired. Grabbing a single loose ball was the extent of his involvement in an otherwise empty shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Made a brief appearance at the very end of regulation when the result was already decided. He registered no meaningful actions during his few seconds on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Burned the final seconds of the game in a purely procedural substitution. The lack of court time prevented any measurable impact on the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 39.4m
26
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-13.1

Massive volume masked severe inefficiency and costly live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. His inability to contain the point-of-attack defense late in the fourth quarter ultimately tanked his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 39.4m -21.4
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tobias Harris 30.8m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Despite decent hustle metrics, his overall impact cratered due to poorly timed turnovers and defensive rotations that yielded open corner threes. A brutal third-quarter stretch where his matchup consistently blew by him defined this heavily negative outing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 30.8m -16.6
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 26.2m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Surprisingly robust defensive positioning drove his positive impact, offsetting a relatively quiet shooting night. He kept the spacing intact during key second-half stretches by drawing defenders away from the primary actions.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 26.2m -14.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 12.3m
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Foul trouble severely limited his floor time and disrupted his usual interior rhythm. He struggled to anchor the paint against the pick-and-roll, bleeding points at the rim which drove his negative defensive score.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 12.3m -6.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Pulled almost immediately after a blown defensive rotation led to an easy layup. The negative impact score reflects a completely empty stint where the opponent capitalized on transition opportunities during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.8

Anchored the interior with phenomenal rim deterrence and timely closeouts that generated a massive defensive rating. His willingness to take and make trail threes stretched the opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 29.5m -15.9
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Caris LeVert 20.2m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

Completely stalled the secondary unit's offense with forced, contested mid-range jumpers that led to long rebounds and transition points the other way. His inability to generate separation against switch-heavy schemes resulted in a highly detrimental stint.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 20.2m -10.9
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided steady, low-mistake minutes by staying attached to shooters and executing crisp weak-side rotations. A crucial sequence of deflections in the third quarter highlighted a fundamentally sound, if unspectacular, shift.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 18.9m -10.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Defensive anticipation was the unexpected catalyst here, generating multiple deflections that sparked transition opportunities. He consistently fought over screens to deny dribble hand-offs, neutralizing the opponent's perimeter actions.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +44.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 17.5m -9.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.0

A disastrous offensive showing where poor shot selection and forced drives directly fed the opponent's transition game. He was repeatedly hunted in isolation during the second quarter, compounding his offensive struggles with defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense -8.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total -6.0
Avg player in 14.8m -8.0
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.5

Injected immediate energy off the bench with aggressive downhill drives that collapsed the defense. A dominant five-minute burst in the second quarter completely flipped the momentum and drove his elite per-minute impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 11.8m -6.3
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 8.5m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.5

Maximized a very short stint by dominating the offensive glass and creating crucial second-chance opportunities. His hard rolls to the rim sucked in the low man, subtly generating high-quality looks for the perimeter players.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 8.5m -4.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Failed to initiate the offense effectively during his brief rotational minutes, leading to stagnant possessions and late-clock heaves. A pair of miscommunications on defensive switches quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 6.6m -3.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Inserted solely to eat the final seconds of the clock. A single defensive rebound was the only notable event in this fleeting appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Only saw the floor for a garbage-time cameo at the end of the game. He simply did not have enough time to register any meaningful impact on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0