GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
27
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.7

Generated massive value through relentless rim pressure and defensive playmaking despite a subpar shooting night from the field. His ability to consistently collapse the defense and force rotations drove the offense, while his active hands disrupted passing lanes to secure a high positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 14/15 (93.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 35.0m -16.7
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Isaiah Joe 34.8m
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

A high volume of scoring was overshadowed by poor defensive execution and a lack of shooting efficiency. He was consistently hunted on switches, giving back almost everything he created on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 34.8m -16.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 33.5m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Brick-laying from the perimeter severely damaged his offensive value, as defenders routinely sagged off him to clog the driving lanes. While his physical on-ball defense remained a bright spot, the sheer number of empty possessions he generated dragged his impact score deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 33.5m -16.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylin Williams 33.1m
9
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.7

Despite dominating the defensive glass and spacing the floor well, his overall impact was surprisingly negative. He struggled mightily in pick-and-roll coverage, frequently getting caught in no-man's land and bleeding points on defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.7
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 33.1m -15.7
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Cason Wallace 31.2m
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense and elite hustle metrics completely salvaged a quiet offensive night. He absolutely blanketed his primary assignment by blowing up screens and generating deflections, though a total lack of rebounding kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.4
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 31.2m -14.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.7

A sudden slump in shooting efficiency was bailed out by phenomenal hustle and connective passing. He constantly made the extra rotation on defense and saved multiple loose balls, generating crucial extra possessions that drove his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 28.5m -13.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

An unexpected offensive explosion completely changed the complexion of the second unit. He punished late closeouts and capitalized on broken plays, finding a scoring rhythm that had been missing in recent games to drive a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 19.3m -9.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 12.9m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided a quick burst of perimeter spacing but offered virtually nothing else in his limited minutes. His defensive rotations were a step slow, allowing easy blow-bys that negated his offensive contributions and kept his net impact nearly flat.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +7.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.4
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 12.9m -6.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Played a mistake-free brand of basketball during his brief time on the court. Crisp passing and disciplined defensive positioning kept the team's momentum rolling, proving how a low-usage player can positively impact the margins.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 11.7m -5.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
17
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.0

Forcing the issue offensively led to a sharp drop in efficiency compared to his recent hot streak. While he remained active as a team defender, the sheer volume of missed jumpers from the perimeter stalled out multiple half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 39.0m -18.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Gui Santos 37.1m
22
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.7

A dip in perimeter efficiency snapped his hot shooting streak, but his relentless activity on the glass kept his overall impact firmly in the green. Stout defensive rotations and extra possessions masked the clunky shot selection from deep.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 37.1m -17.7
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 32.6m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.4

Punishing drop coverage with an unexpected barrage from beyond the arc completely altered how the defense had to guard him. Combined with his usual elite defensive orchestration and high-level hustle metrics, he controlled the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +6.6
Defense +7.6
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 32.6m -15.6
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Al Horford 28.7m
4
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Excellent positional defense and steady hustle numbers couldn't quite salvage a rough shooting night. Failing to stretch the floor allowed the opposition to pack the paint and stifle the offense, though his defensive anchoring kept the bleeding to a minimum.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 28.7m -13.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Pat Spencer 25.5m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Despite efficient shot-making, his overall impact cratered due to a glaring lack of peripheral production. He was repeatedly targeted in defensive actions and failed to secure loose balls, bleeding value on the margins.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 25.5m -12.0
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.3

Settling for contested jumpers rather than establishing deep post position ruined his offensive rhythm. The resulting misses fueled opponent transition opportunities, dragging his impact score down significantly despite decent rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 23.0m -11.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

A significant dip in finishing efficiency was completely offset by an absolute masterclass in rebounding for a guard. He consistently kept possessions alive with timely tip-outs and fought through screens to disrupt the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 22.1m -10.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
LJ Cryer 17.0m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Low usage and a complete lack of playmaking severely limited his offensive footprint. He was a non-factor in the hustle categories and struggled to stay in front of his man defensively, leading to a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 17.0m -8.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

A sudden inability to finish around the basket derailed his short stint on the floor. Forcing tough shots early in the clock killed offensive momentum and allowed the opposition to leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 8.6m -4.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Maximized a brief rotation stint by making quick, decisive reads and playing disruptive on-ball defense. His ability to seamlessly fit into the switching scheme generated a surprisingly high positive impact in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 6.4m -3.0
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0