GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 33.1m
12
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Flawless finishing on lob threats and putbacks maximized his offensive value without requiring post touches. His massive defensive rating reflects his ability to completely deter drives to the rim, altering the opponent's entire shot profile. This was a textbook display of vertical spacing and rim protection.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 33.1m -16.4
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Anthony Edwards 31.6m
34
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.0

An explosive scoring surge fueled a massive positive impact, snapping a recent cold streak in spectacular fashion. His lethal perimeter shooting forced defenders to play up, which he exploited by drawing fouls and collapsing the defense. This alpha-dog performance single-handedly dictated the tempo and outcome of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 31.6m -15.7
Impact +19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jaden McDaniels 28.6m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

A catastrophic shooting performance completely erased his elite hustle and defensive contributions. He short-circuited offensive possessions by continually bricking open perimeter looks, allowing the defense to completely ignore him. Despite locking down his primary matchup, the offensive dead weight was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/9 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 13.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense -8.1
Hustle +7.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 28.6m -14.3
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.8

An absolute zero offensively, missing every single shot he took to crater the team's spacing. His inability to knock down open catch-and-shoot threes allowed the defense to aggressively double the primary ball handlers. Even decent defensive effort couldn't salvage a performance defined by offensive futility.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense -5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 28.6m -14.2
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 26.0m
14
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Inefficient isolation attempts and a lack of playmaking dragged his overall impact into the red. While he rebounded well and played surprisingly stout defense, his tendency to stall the offense with ball-stopping habits proved costly. The offense bogged down whenever he tried to force the issue against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 26.0m -13.0
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Naz Reid 26.4m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite solid counting stats, his negative overall impact suggests poor defensive rotations and giving up easy points at the rim. He settled for contested perimeter jumpers instead of leveraging his size inside. The scoring volume merely masked how often he was exploited in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 26.4m -13.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bones Hyland 23.3m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

Erratic shot selection and a heavy reliance on contested threes doomed his efficiency and overall impact. He dominated the ball during his minutes, but the trigger-happy approach disrupted the offensive flow. This high-usage, low-efficiency style fueled opponent transition opportunities off long rebounds.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 23.3m -11.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 20.5m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

Poor decision-making and missed layups in traffic severely damaged his overall impact. He struggled to initiate the offense, often driving into crowds and stalling out possessions. This stark regression from his recent scoring form left the second unit completely rudderless.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 20.5m -10.1
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Completely invisible during his floor time, failing to impact the game in any meaningful way. He was a step slow on defensive rotations, leading to a negative defensive score. The lack of aggression or involvement rendered his minutes essentially dead weight.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 8.2m -4.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Managed to draw contact to get on the board, but missed both of his field goal attempts in a brief stint. His active hands on defense kept his impact hovering near neutral. He simply didn't have enough time to establish a rhythm or alter the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -107.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 4.6m -2.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Missed his only shot and failed to register any peripheral stats during garbage time minutes. While he showed decent defensive positioning, his offensive passivity was glaring. He operated strictly as a placeholder on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -107.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 4.6m -2.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Made the most of his brief appearance by converting his only look and providing solid energy. He contested shots effectively in the paint, showing good verticality. A highly efficient, mistake-free cameo that slightly boosted the team's metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -107.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 4.6m -2.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 34.8m
25
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Dominant work on the glass and highly efficient interior scoring drove a strong positive impact. Despite struggling from beyond the arc, his physical mismatches in the paint forced the defense to collapse repeatedly. His defensive rebounding essentially ended possessions single-handedly, anchoring the team's transition game.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 34.8m -17.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Desmond Bane 33.1m
30
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.7

Bane's tremendous scoring volume fueled a massive box score footprint, though his overall net impact was slightly dampened by missing every perimeter attempt. He relentlessly attacked the interior to compensate for the cold outside shooting, breaking down the defense off the dribble. This downhill aggression defined his night and kept the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.1%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 33.1m -16.5
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 29.3m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.5

An exceptionally high hustle score highlights a performance defined by loose ball recoveries and disruptive perimeter defense. While his overall shooting efficiency dipped, his willingness to take and make timely threes stretched the defense. The relentless point-of-attack pressure he applied set the tone for the defensive unit.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +7.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 29.3m -14.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite shot selection and flawless finishing around the rim generated a highly efficient offensive footprint. He anchored the interior defense effectively, contesting shots without fouling to boost his defensive rating. This low-usage, high-efficiency performance perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 24.8m -12.3
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Anthony Black 2.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

In a brief stint, his primary contribution came from applying defensive pressure on the perimeter. He didn't have enough floor time to establish an offensive rhythm, resulting in a negligible overall impact. His focused defensive rotations kept his brief minutes neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Solid positional rebounding and active weak-side defensive rotations drove a steady positive impact. He found soft spots in the defense for efficient two-point conversions, even as his outside shot failed to fall. This reliable two-way execution provided crucial stability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +33.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 31.1m -15.5
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 25.0m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Poor shot selection and missed mid-range attempts dragged down his overall impact despite a scoring bump. He forced contested looks early in the shot clock, disrupting the offensive flow. The defensive metrics show he offered little resistance to offset his inefficient shooting volume.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 25.0m -12.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

A brutal shooting night completely neutralized his active work on the offensive glass. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort but squandered them by missing point-blank finishes around the rim. The inability to convert high-percentage looks ultimately tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 19.4m -9.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jevon Carter 18.7m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.6

A severely negative overall impact suggests hidden costs like poor defensive rotations that aren't captured in the base metrics. Despite hitting a couple of perimeter shots and distributing the ball, his small stature allowed opponents to shoot over him repeatedly. Opposing guards consistently exploited him in isolation sequences, bleeding points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 18.7m -9.3
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Noah Penda 14.2m
0
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Excellent defensive positioning and solid rebounding kept his impact slightly positive despite offering zero offensive production. He completely abandoned his scoring role, focusing entirely on boxing out and contesting shots. This one-dimensional approach worked solely because he didn't force bad shots.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 14.2m -7.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Incredible per-minute production defined this brief cameo, as he dominated the paint on both ends. He capitalized on every touch with decisive finishes and secured every available rebound in his vicinity. This hyper-efficient stint provided a massive, immediate boost to the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +83.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 3.8m -1.9
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 3.8m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A steep drop-off from his recent hot streak, as forced shots quickly derailed his rhythm. He failed to register any hustle stats or defensive impact, floating on the perimeter during his short stint. The lack of engagement outside of hunting his own shot resulted in a slightly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +83.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.8m -1.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0