GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 35.3m
32
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.1

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, pairing elite shot-making with suffocating defensive metrics. He took over stretches of the game with his perimeter gravity while actively blowing up opponent actions on the other end. The massive hustle and defensive scores indicate he was locked in as a complete, all-around alpha.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 35.3m -18.2
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.0

Overcame a brutal shooting night inside the arc by generating immense value through relentless hustle and perimeter spacing. He broke out of a recent slump by keeping the offense flowing and chasing down loose balls. His high-energy approach ensured he remained a net positive despite the clunky overall field goal percentage.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 32.5m -16.8
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 31.3m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.9

A severely negative impact driven by invisible defense and a lack of secondary effort plays. While he hit some timely outside shots, he was consistently exploited on the other end of the floor. The inability to generate stops or secure 50/50 balls completely washed away his perimeter spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 31.3m -16.1
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Green 30.8m
25
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

High-volume scoring was completely neutralized by a lack of hustle and likely defensive lapses. He settled for too many contested perimeter looks, bleeding value on empty possessions. The raw production masked a hollow performance where he failed to do the dirty work required to win his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 30.8m -15.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Oso Ighodaro 26.6m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Continued his streak of elite finishing around the basket, but struggled to anchor the defense. Despite strong hustle metrics, his inability to protect the rim or deter drives kept his overall impact hovering around neutral. He was highly efficient with his touches, but gave too much back on the defensive interior.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 26.6m -13.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.9

Compensated for a cold shooting night by transforming into a high-level defensive disruptor and secondary playmaker. He consistently made the extra pass and blew up perimeter actions, proving his value extends far beyond spot-up shooting. The defensive metrics heavily insulated his impact from the barrage of missed threes.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 29.4m -15.3
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Completely changed the geometry of the court with a monstrous defensive performance. His rim protection and rotational awareness suffocated opposing drivers, driving an elite defensive rating. He didn't need offensive touches to dominate his minutes, thriving purely as a defensive anchor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +10.4
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 20.2m -10.4
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Struggled to find a rhythm, as limited defensive impact and low hustle numbers dragged down his overall score. While he knocked down a couple of outside looks, he was largely a passenger during his floor time. The lack of physical engagement allowed opponents to dictate the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 14.4m -7.4
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 12.6m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

A rough outing where poor shot selection and a sharp drop in offensive production tanked his value. He settled for low-percentage perimeter looks instead of attacking the paint, resulting in empty possessions. The defensive effort wasn't enough to cover for the offensive black hole he created.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +46.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 12.6m -6.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Failed to make a mark in a brief stint, missing both of his perimeter attempts. He provided almost no resistance defensively and couldn't generate any momentum. A completely forgettable shift that slightly bled value.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 6.8m -3.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Logged just two seconds of garbage time. No meaningful impact to evaluate.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0m -0.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 41.0m
22
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

Overcame a high volume of missed shots through sheer defensive activity and floor-spacing gravity. His willingness to let it fly from deep kept the defense stretched, while his length on the perimeter suffocated opposing wings. The elite defensive metrics heavily insulated his overall impact from the inefficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 41.0m -21.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Saddiq Bey 34.1m
19
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Steady two-way play drove a positive impact despite a cold night from beyond the arc. His defensive rotations and secondary hustle contributions helped stabilize the wing rotation. The poor perimeter shooting capped his ceiling, but he found ways to contribute positively without needing the deep ball to fall.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 34.1m -17.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 33.7m
19
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

Generated consistent rim pressure that collapsed the defense, dictating the tempo through physical mismatches. His active hands and robust hustle metrics indicate a high-energy performance on both ends of the floor. Even with a slight dip in his usual finishing efficiency, the sheer gravity of his drives kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 33.7m -17.4
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Herbert Jones 30.9m
14
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.6

A massive defensive and hustle footprint defined this outing, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. He broke out of a recent scoring slump by taking high-quality shots within the flow of the offense. His elite event creation on the perimeter was the primary driver of his highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 30.9m -15.9
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dejounte Murray 29.8m
15
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.0

Impact plummeted due to offensive inefficiency and likely turnover costs that negated his defensive effort. While he broke out of a recent scoring rut, the volume of empty possessions out of the backcourt stalled out offensive runs. His point-of-attack defense was solid, but the playmaking execution simply gave too much value back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 29.8m -15.3
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Yves Missi 16.4m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Struggled to leave a positive imprint during his minutes, as a lack of defensive event creation limited his overall value. He was efficient with his limited touches around the basket, but failed to alter shots or command the paint defensively. The low hustle metrics suggest he was frequently beaten to loose balls and secondary actions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 16.4m -8.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

A sharp drop-off from his recent scoring surge resulted in a heavily negative impact on the floor. He failed to generate any defensive resistance or hustle plays, making him a liability when the shots weren't falling. The lack of secondary contributions meant his quiet offensive night directly hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 14.6m -7.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Perfect shot selection and execution maximized his value in a short stint. He maintained a streak of highly efficient performances, punishing defensive rotations with timely cuts and finishes. His solid defensive positioning ensured that his offensive perfection translated directly to a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 13.4m -6.9
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Barely registered offensively, floating on the perimeter without putting pressure on the defense. While he wasn't a massive liability on the defensive end, his inability to generate any gravity or event creation dragged down his overall score. He simply existed on the court rather than impacting the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 13.1m -6.7
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 12.9m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

An absolute cratering of value driven by empty offensive trips and zero hustle contributions. He was effectively played off the floor as he failed to secure loose balls or provide any defensive resistance. The complete lack of energy stats highlights a passive stint that bled points.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 12.9m -6.7
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3