GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 38.7m
35
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.7

An overwhelming offensive explosion fueled a dominant overall rating, blending high-volume shot creation with elite efficiency. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post and utilized his athleticism to finish through contact at the rim. Solid defensive engagement and timely hustle plays ensured his massive scoring output resulted in a blowout impact score.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +25.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +37.3
Avg player in 38.7m -21.6
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
24
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.2

Strong perimeter shot-making and active hustle metrics kept his net impact in the green during a heavy-minute workload. He thrived as a secondary creator, consistently punishing late closeouts with decisive drives or spot-up triples. However, slight defensive lapses in off-ball navigation prevented his overall score from matching his impressive offensive output.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 36.4m -20.4
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 34.7m
15
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite hustle metrics and suffocating point-of-attack defense drove a massive positive impact. He consistently blew up passing lanes and generated extra possessions, serving as the ultimate connective tissue for the starting unit. Highly selective, efficient shot-making ensured he maximized his offensive touches without forcing the issue against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +7.2
Defense +8.8
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 34.7m -19.5
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 32.4m
17
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.6

Poor perimeter shot selection and likely costly turnovers severely dragged down his overall impact despite decent raw defensive metrics. He struggled to find a rhythm from deep, frequently stalling offensive possessions with contested, late-clock jumpers. The inability to efficiently orchestrate the offense allowed the opposition to capitalize on empty trips down the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 32.4m -18.1
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Onyeka Okongwu 28.9m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

Despite decent efficiency, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to struggles anchoring the paint against physical drives. He failed to generate enough rim deterrence, allowing opponents to convert high-percentage looks in the restricted area. The lack of dominant rebounding presence limited his ability to control the tempo from the center position.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 28.9m -16.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Exceptional defensive positioning and high-energy hustle plays drove a stellar positive impact in a complementary role. He perfectly executed his three-and-D responsibilities, hitting timely perimeter shots while seamlessly switching across multiple positions. His ability to impact the game without requiring heavy touches made him a massive plus for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 22.4m -12.5
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Jock Landale 19.1m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

A lack of defensive resistance and poor hustle metrics undermined a relatively efficient offensive showing. He struggled to protect the rim in drop coverage, frequently allowing guards to turn the corner for easy floaters. The inability to secure contested rebounds or generate extra possessions left his overall impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 19.1m -10.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Subpar perimeter shooting and a lack of secondary impact plays resulted in a negative overall rating. He failed to punish defensive rotations from beyond the arc, which neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. Without his shot falling, his inability to consistently generate rim pressure or create for others became glaringly apparent.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 14.0m -7.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Relentless energy and outstanding hustle metrics generated highly positive value in a very short burst of playing time. He maximized his minutes by crashing the glass, setting hard screens, and disrupting passing lanes. The willingness to do the dirty work provided a noticeable spark to the second unit's defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 9.3m -5.3
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

A disastrously brief stint was defined by immediate negative value on both ends of the floor. He failed to establish any offensive rhythm and was quickly targeted by opposing guards on defense. The coaching staff pulled the plug rapidly as his presence actively hindered the unit's spacing and flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -110.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total -5.2
Avg player in 4.2m -2.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Quentin Grimes 41.2m
26
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Impact cratered despite elite shot-making due to severe defensive breakdowns and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. He consistently punished closeouts on offense, but his inability to navigate off-ball screens allowed the opposition to answer immediately. The stark contrast between his box score and net impact highlights a performance filled with empty calories.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.2m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 41.2m -23.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tyrese Maxey 37.9m
31
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.9

Relentless rim pressure and elite shot creation generated a massive positive impact across the board. His defensive engagement was particularly notable, using active hands to disrupt passing lanes and ignite transition opportunities. The ability to maintain high-end efficiency on a heavy usage rate completely dictated the offensive flow and overwhelmed primary defenders.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +8.6
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 37.9m -21.2
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 35.9m
24
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

Elite shot selection and conversion rate fueled a massive offensive spike that anchored his positive impact. Defensive rotations were consistently punished as he capitalized on high-quality looks from all three levels. His active hands and robust hustle metrics ensured the scoring burst wasn't given back in transition.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 35.9m -20.0
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Adem Bona 29.1m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Strong defensive positioning wasn't enough to salvage a negative overall impact, largely dragged down by offensive invisibility. A severe lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint for primary creators. He struggled to establish meaningful post position, forcing the offense into stagnant, late-clock situations.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 29.1m -16.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 26.1m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

Impact plummeted due to a lack of offensive assertiveness and likely costly mistakes not captured by standard splits. The steep drop-off in scoring volume from his recent stretch left the second unit devoid of a reliable interior presence. His inability to generate consistent rim pressure allowed the opposing frontcourt to dictate the tempo and swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 26.1m -14.6
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Missed bunnies around the rim and a complete lack of offensive gravity cratered his overall impact score. While he secured his usual rebounding real estate, the inability to finish through contact stalled out multiple half-court possessions. Opposing bigs comfortably ignored him on the perimeter, severely shrinking the floor for driving guards.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 18.9m -10.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Highly efficient interior finishing was completely undermined by poor defensive positioning and a lack of overall hustle. He successfully bullied smaller defenders in the paint, but was repeatedly targeted and exposed in space on the other end. The inability to offer resistance at the rim allowed the opposition to generate easy looks, erasing his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 18.6m -10.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

A surprising scoring punch wasn't enough to keep his net impact out of the red, largely due to a lack of secondary hustle plays. He found success exploiting mismatches on the perimeter, but defensive rotations were frequently a step slow. The offensive uptick was ultimately neutralized by giving up too much ground in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 17.4m -9.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.4

Exceptional defensive metrics and hustle plays drove a highly positive stint despite a quiet scoring night. He thrived as a disruptive point-of-attack defender, consistently blowing up dribble handoffs and forcing the offense out of rhythm. His value came entirely from high-IQ connective passing and relentless energy in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 14.9m -8.3
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0