GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Oso Ighodaro 36.1m
10
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.6

Flawless execution as a rim-runner and elite defensive positioning (+6.6) anchored a highly impactful performance. He never forced a bad look, perfectly exploiting the gaps in the pick-and-roll coverage to maintain his streak of hyper-efficient games. His disciplined vertical spacing and constant hustle (+3.4) created massive structural advantages for the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.6
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 36.1m -15.7
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Devin Booker 32.0m
27
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Dominant defensive engagement (+8.6) surprisingly drove his high impact score more than his scoring output. He struggled slightly with his perimeter efficiency, but compensated by creating immense pressure at the point of attack. His willingness to fight through screens and disrupt passing lanes set a physical tone that elevated the entire lineup.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.1%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.6
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 32.0m -13.9
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Green 31.7m
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.5

A disastrous shooting performance completely cratered his impact, as he repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of clanked three-pointers fueled long opponent transition runs, severely damaging the team's offensive rhythm. While he competed on the defensive end (+3.4), it wasn't nearly enough to offset the massive hole created by his inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/20 (25.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.7%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 31.7m -13.9
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.2

Terrific hustle metrics (+4.2) couldn't completely salvage a rough night of offensive execution. He generated great looks for others but consistently short-armed his own perimeter jumpers, bogging down the half-court spacing. The defensive effort was commendable, yet the missed open shots ultimately tipped his overall value into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 25.2m -11.0
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 18.2m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Inability to punish defensive closeouts resulted in a heavily negative rating during his time on the floor. He passed up open driving lanes only to settle for contested perimeter looks that routinely missed the mark. The lack of offensive gravity allowed the defense to aggressively double-team other primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 18.2m -8.0
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.4

Extreme three-point volume yielded mixed results, as his floor-spacing gravity barely kept his impact positive. He missed a staggering number of deep looks, but the constant threat of his jumper prevented the defense from collapsing on drives. Solid secondary playmaking and timely hustle plays (+2.5) provided just enough value to survive the shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 5/16 (31.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 32.6m -14.3
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Dunn 23.6m
6
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Smothering perimeter defense (+8.0) defined his night and completely erased his primary matchup from the game. He generated massive value by blowing up dribble hand-offs and securing tough contested rebounds in traffic. His offensive role was minimal, but his elite event creation on the other end made him indispensable.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.0
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 23.6m -10.4
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Amir Coffey 17.5m
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Ruthless efficiency on low volume maximized his offensive footprint in a short window of playing time. He perfectly executed his role as a spot-up threat, punishing the defense every time they lost him in rotation. The flawless shooting display generated a massive box score boost (+12.0) that easily outweighed his quiet defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +12.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 17.5m -7.6
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Severe struggles with defensive rotations and positioning led to a quick negative swing during his brief stint. He was frequently caught out of position in the pick-and-roll, surrendering easy angles to the basket. Despite making his only shot attempt, his inability to anchor the paint forced the coaching staff to pull him early.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 11.9m -5.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Provided a steady, low-mistake presence during his rotational minutes to keep the bench unit afloat. He capitalized on his limited touches with decisive cuts to the rim, avoiding the spacing issues that plagued the rest of the reserves. A quiet but fundamentally sound defensive effort ensured he was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 11.1m -4.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Collin Sexton 37.6m
30
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.0

Relentless downhill attacking broke the opposing defensive shell and fueled a dominant overall rating. He generated elite value by converting high-traffic drives into efficient buckets, completely overwhelming his primary matchups. A spectacular two-way effort was capped off by disruptive perimeter defense (+7.8) that consistently turned stops into transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 37.6m -16.4
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Heavy volume couldn't mask the inefficiency inside the arc, as missed contested layups heavily weighed down his net impact. He provided a noticeable scoring punch above his season average, but it required too many empty possessions to get there. The defensive metrics (+2.1) suggest he battled inside, yet the poor interior finishing ultimately sank his overall score.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 37.3m -16.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Isaac Okoro 35.5m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.5

A severe drop in offensive aggression torpedoed his overall value, as he vanished for long stretches of the game. Despite holding his own defensively (+1.8), his reluctance to attack the rim left the offense playing 4-on-5. The lack of scoring punch created a massive negative swing compared to his usual production.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 35.5m -15.6
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tre Jones 28.8m
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.5

Masterful offensive orchestration and hyper-efficient shot creation drove a massive positive impact. He consistently punished defensive rotations by getting to his spots, extending a brilliant streak of high-percentage shooting. Adding elite point-of-attack defense (+6.7) to his scoring efficiency made him the most stabilizing force on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.7
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 28.8m -12.5
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Leonard Miller 23.8m
8
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Brutal perimeter execution dragged down his rating, highlighted by a barrage of bricked three-pointers that killed offensive momentum. While he salvaged some value through active rebounding and solid defensive positioning (+2.2), the empty possessions from deep were too costly. His shot selection ultimately neutralized his high-energy hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 23.8m -10.3
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Elite rim protection (+5.1) and flawless interior finishing nearly balanced out a surprisingly quiet offensive night. He was a complete non-factor as a roll man, failing to generate enough touches to swing the game. The lack of offensive assertiveness neutralized the massive value he provided as a defensive deterrent.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 29.4m -12.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Forced perimeter jumpers and erratic shot selection negated a noticeable spike in his scoring volume. The offense stalled when he settled for contested deep looks rather than probing the paint. Despite a few flashes of creation, the sheer number of wasted possessions resulted in a solidly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 20.6m -9.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Impact stayed marginally positive entirely due to his defensive anchoring (+3.2) during a brief rotational stint. He struggled to finish around the basket, missing several high-percentage looks that suppressed his box score value. However, his ability to contest shots without fouling kept the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 17.1m -7.5
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Pure energy and playmaking off the bench drove a positive rating despite a completely blank scoring sheet. He generated significant value through relentless ball pressure and elite hustle (+3.8) in a short burst of minutes. His ability to organize the offense without needing shots showcased his high-IQ floor game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 9.9m -4.3
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1