GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 32.0m
20
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-1.9

Masterfully orchestrated the pick-and-roll to rack up assists and high-percentage floaters, but gave it all back on the other end. Opposing guards consistently blew past his initial point-of-attack defense, forcing rotations that led to wide-open corner threes.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 32.0m -19.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
29
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+29.8

Utterly dominated the paint on both ends, pairing hyper-efficient finishing with an impenetrable rim-protection radius. His ability to erase defensive mistakes and immediately ignite transition offense during a massive third-quarter run resulted in a staggering, game-defining impact score.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +34.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +7.5
Defense +13.8
Raw total +47.9
Avg player in 30.3m -18.1
Impact +29.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 0
S Devin Vassell 29.9m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.6

A complete inability to buy a bucket derailed the offense, as he repeatedly settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups. While his defensive rotations were crisp and prevented easy layups, his pattern of forcing early-clock jumpers created a massive drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 28.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 29.9m -17.8
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

Thrived as a low-usage spacer, punishing late closeouts with timely perimeter shooting from the wings. His exceptional weak-side help defense and knack for securing loose balls were the true drivers of a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 28.6m -17.1
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 25.9m
23
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.4

Showcased impressive scoring versatility by blending aggressive downhill drives with a confident perimeter stroke. However, his tendency to get lost navigating off-ball screens allowed his matchups to leak out for easy baskets, limiting his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 25.9m -15.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Dylan Harper 25.9m
19
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.8

Carried the scoring load with a barrage of tough, contested finishes in the paint that kept the offense humming. His defensive apathy, characterized by slow closeouts and missed rotations on the perimeter, nearly negated his stellar shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 25.9m -15.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Caught fire from beyond the arc, utilizing decisive catch-and-shoot mechanics to punish defensive lapses. The scoring outburst was heavily offset by his inability to stay in front of straight-line drives, turning his minutes into a defensive track meet.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.4
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 25.7m -15.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 14.1m
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Provided excellent screen-setting and offensive rebounding activity that kept possessions alive. Unfortunately, his lack of foot speed in space was exposed in drop coverage against high pick-and-rolls, neutralizing his hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.0
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 14.1m -8.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Flashed promising floor-spacing ability by knocking down a pair of crucial triples from the wing. Despite the scoring bump, poor positioning on the defensive glass allowed costly second-chance points that dragged his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 13.0m -7.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Maximized a brief stint by immediately sinking a rhythm three-pointer and keeping the ball moving without hesitation. Played mistake-free basketball during his minutes, providing a clean, stabilizing presence for the second unit during a chaotic stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 3.6m -2.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by confidently stepping into a transition three that sparked a quick run. His decisive ball movement and refusal to force bad looks ensured his short shift was entirely productive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 3.6m -2.2
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Operated flawlessly as a trailing big, draining his only look from deep to stretch the defense. Kept the offensive flow intact with smart connective passing out of the high post, ensuring a positive swing during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 3.6m -2.2
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
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Offered zero offensive gravity, allowing defenders to freely pack the paint and disrupt driving lanes for teammates. A couple of poorly timed fouls contesting shots at the rim compounded a highly detrimental short shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 3.6m -2.2
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 35.9m
23
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.4

Relentless downhill pressure forced defensive collapses, creating high-value looks at the rim and open kick-outs. However, his massive box score production was heavily diluted by defensive gambling that compromised the team's backside rotation during the second half.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 35.9m -21.5
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 33.5m
23
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

Methodical shot creation anchored the halfcourt offense, though his overall impact was capped by forcing passes into crowded paint. His length disrupted passing lanes effectively, generating a solid defensive rating that kept the team afloat during stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 33.5m -20.0
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

High-efficiency shooting from the midrange was completely neutralized by sloppy ball security. His inability to string together stops during a crucial third-quarter stretch allowed transition leaks, dragging his overall impact down to neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 30.7m -18.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 27.3m
16
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.4

Scoring efficiency in the post couldn't offset the defensive bleeding when he was drawn out into pick-and-roll coverage. Opponents relentlessly targeted his drop coverage at the top of the key, turning his solid offensive outing into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 27.3m -16.4
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tari Eason 20.1m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.6

Offensive rhythm completely vanished, resulting in forced drives and heavily contested misses at the rim. While his trademark high-motor hustle plays generated extra possessions, the sheer volume of empty trips against set defenses tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 20.1m -12.0
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.6

Shot selection devolved into forcing contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, leading to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. Even with active hands generating deflections on defense, his pattern of jacking up off-balance threes created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 35.1m -21.0
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corner to break out of a recent scoring slump. Unfortunately, his positive shooting variance was erased by poor point-of-attack defense and a failure to secure contested rebounds in traffic.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 20.8m -12.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 14.4m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Offensive involvement was practically nonexistent, but his rim deterrence completely altered the opponent's shot profile in the paint. Anchoring the defense with verticality during a pivotal second-quarter stint kept his overall impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +8.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 14.4m -8.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Overzealous shot hunting led to a string of inefficient misses that stalled the second-unit offense. He salvaged a positive impact entirely through tenacious on-ball pressure, blowing up multiple handoff actions to generate critical defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 7.5m -4.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Failed to make a dent during limited minutes, struggling to find any offensive flow and missing both of his rushed attempts. A lack of his usual disruptive energy on the perimeter meant there was nothing to salvage a completely empty shift.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 6.3m -3.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Completely invisible during a brief garbage-time cameo, failing to record a single positive action. The negative impact stems from defensive miscommunications that allowed easy backdoor cuts in a short span.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 4.2m -2.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 4.2m
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Injected immediate offensive life into a stagnant lineup by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down a quick spot-up look. Maximized his short burst of playing time with flawless execution on a pivotal baseline out-of-bounds play.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 4.2m -2.5
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0