GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Christian Braun 39.9m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.3

Despite generating excellent hustle numbers (+3.1) and efficient looks, severe hidden costs punished his overall score. The stark plunge to a -5.3 total suggests he was plagued by rotational errors or critical turnovers that fueled opponent transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 39.9m -20.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 38.4m
28
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.9

Lethal perimeter shot-making and outstanding loose-ball recovery (+4.0 hustle) powered a dominant offensive showing. His ability to hit heavily contested jumpers broke the opposing defense, though a quiet defensive presence kept his final impact from being even higher.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 38.4m -19.6
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nikola Jokić 37.8m
28
pts
12
reb
13
ast
Impact
+5.2

Masterful offensive orchestration and hyper-efficient interior touches drove a massive baseline rating (+17.9). Yet, a surprisingly modest total impact implies he gave back significant value through uncharacteristic live-ball turnovers or pick-and-roll defensive concessions.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 37.8m -19.2
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 9
18
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Aggressive shot-taking fueled a massive scoring surge that far exceeded his recent offensive struggles. Unfortunately, negative defensive metrics indicate his hot hand was completely offset by getting consistently beaten off the dribble on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 28.8m -14.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zeke Nnaji 23.8m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Strong rim protection metrics (+4.6) couldn't salvage a negative overall rating. A lack of offensive gravity and likely foul trouble negated his defensive effort, rendering his minutes a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 23.8m -12.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 29.9m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Continuing a streak of highly efficient shooting, he provided reliable offensive execution in the half-court. But a severe penalty in his total score (-6.1) points to off-ball defensive mistakes or critical turnovers that completely erased his scoring value.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 29.9m -15.2
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Efficient perimeter execution provided a much-needed offensive boost compared to his recent slump. However, a lack of secondary contributions and hidden negative plays—likely poor transition defense—dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 25.6m -13.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Generated all his value through drawing fouls and securing extra possessions, as he didn't attempt a single field goal. Solid defensive positioning (+1.9) and physical screen-setting kept him nearly neutral despite the sharp drop in scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 10.2m -5.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyus Jones 5.7m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Forced shots and an inability to orchestrate the offense doomed his brief stint. Generating zero hustle stats and failing to break down the defense, his minutes were a clear drag on the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -3.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 5.7m -3.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 40.4m
27
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.1

Sheer volume of creation and elite defensive rebounding (+11.7 Def) anchored his commanding performance. Even with a barrage of missed perimeter heat-checks, his physical engagement and constant rim pressure dictated the entire matchup.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +6.4
Defense +11.7
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 40.4m -20.6
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Austin Reaves 38.0m
16
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.7

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls (+6.5 hustle) and suffocating perimeter defense (+8.3) elevated his strong offensive execution. This two-way motor defined his performance, turning high-quality shot selection into a massive +12.7 net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +6.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 38.0m -19.4
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S LeBron James 33.7m
16
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.1

Elite defensive positioning (+10.3) and high-value interior shot selection drove his massive positive impact. His ability to dictate the physical flow of the game from the post completely masked a rare off-night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +10.3
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 33.7m -17.1
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 32.2m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.9

A catastrophic gap between his baseline production and a -14.9 total score screams of hidden costs, likely fueled by live-ball turnovers or blown defensive assignments. Despite breaking out of a severe shooting slump, his erratic decision-making as a primary ball-handler actively harmed the offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 32.2m -16.4
Impact -14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Deandre Ayton 4.5m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A brief, disjointed stint snapped a five-game streak of hyper-efficient interior play. Failing to establish any physical presence in the paint against a tough frontcourt, his inability to generate clean looks resulted in a negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -126.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 4.5m -2.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Scorching catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter nearly doubled his recent offensive output. However, a surprisingly modest +2.4 total impact suggests his scoring burst was heavily offset by defensive lapses or costly fouls away from the ball.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 29.0m -14.8
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 27.5m
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

Flawless rim-running and vertical spacing overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt, continuing a dominant streak of interior efficiency. His massive +20.5 box impact was directly fueled by taking only high-percentage looks and anchoring the paint defensively (+5.1).

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 27.5m -14.1
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 20.4m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Reliable floor spacing simply wasn't enough to overcome his glaring defensive liabilities (-0.2). The steep negative total impact (-5.4) indicates he was heavily targeted in pick-and-roll matchups, bleeding points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 20.4m -10.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jake LaRavia 10.3m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Brutal shot selection and a string of forced perimeter misses completely cratered his offensive value. Offering virtually zero resistance on defense or hustle plays, his rotation minutes were a distinct negative pattern for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -60.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.0
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 10.3m -5.3
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A quick, uneventful cameo yielded almost no statistical footprint or typical defensive chaos. Unable to disrupt passing lanes during his brief stretch, his appearance resulted in a slight negative drag.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -69.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 4.0m -2.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0