GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
24
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Catch-and-shoot confidence broke the opposing zone defense wide open during a pivotal second-half stretch. His sudden perimeter eruption forced defensive adjustments that created driving lanes for the entire roster.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 36.1m -17.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Booker 35.2m
30
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+10.4

Masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages dictated the entire flow of the game. By consistently drawing two to the ball and making the correct read, he orchestrated a hyper-efficient offense that overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 15/15 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 35.2m -17.2
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 32.0m
3
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Put on an absolute clinic in weak-side rim rotation, generating a massive defensive rating through elite help principles. However, his total inability to punish closeouts on the other end allowed the defense to ignore him, nearly erasing his elite defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +11.2
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 32.0m -15.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jalen Green 29.8m
24
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Tunnel vision on drives negated his scoring bursts, as he repeatedly forced shots over multiple defenders instead of finding the open man. While his on-ball defensive pressure was surprisingly stout, the empty offensive possessions ultimately dragged his team down.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 40.3%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 29.8m -14.6
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Oso Ighodaro 27.9m
2
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite screen-setting and constant motion generated excellent looks for teammates, reflected in his high hustle metrics. Unfortunately, a sudden hesitance to finish through contact at the rim prevented him from capitalizing on his own offensive opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.2%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 27.9m -13.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.7

Lethal floor-spacing from the trail spot consistently punished the defense for failing to match up in transition. His decisive shooting mechanics and constant off-ball relocation made him an absolute nightmare for slower frontcourt matchups.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 22.7m -11.1
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Active hands and physical point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's primary actions all night. Yet, his offensive limitations were glaring, as clanked open looks stalled momentum and kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 21.2m -10.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Imposing physical length completely altered the geometry of the paint, forcing guards to abort drives and reset the offense. He controlled the defensive glass with authority, ensuring the opposition rarely saw second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 20.1m -9.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 9.7m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Blown defensive assignments and late closeouts allowed backbreaking perimeter looks during his brief stint. Offensively, he was a ghost outside of one spot-up conversion, failing to influence the game's broader rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 9.7m -4.7
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
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence during a chaotic transition period in the rotation. Executed his primary defensive assignment without fouling to keep the ship steady.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.2m -2.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S LaMelo Ball 33.2m
22
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.1

High-volume perimeter isolation severely capped his offensive value, as erratic shot selection led to empty possessions. A complete lack of secondary hustle plays and lazy closeouts on defense further compounded the damage, leaving his team vulnerable in transition.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 33.2m -16.3
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 32.2m
11
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

Offensive rhythm completely vanished as he settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups instead of attacking the paint. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, plunging his net impact into double-digit negatives despite average hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 32.2m -15.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 29.6m
15
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

Shot selection from deep suppressed his overall ceiling, as he forced contested looks on the perimeter. However, his active hands in the passing lanes and rotational discipline on defense kept his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 29.6m -14.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 28.9m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Perimeter chucking actively hurt his value, with forced looks from beyond the arc stalling offensive momentum. Despite decent defensive positioning, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 28.9m -14.2
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 26.7m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Elite rim deterrence and high-motor closeouts defined his defensive presence, generating a massive positive rating on that end. Unfortunately, his offensive impact cratered due to blown finishes around the basket, breaking a streak of highly efficient interior play.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 26.7m -13.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
Coby White 19.6m
7
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.9

Relentless energy on loose balls couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night characterized by forced drives into traffic. His inability to break down the primary defender led to stalled possessions and negative overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -41.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense -0.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 19.6m -9.6
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection anchored a highly productive shift. He capitalized on drop coverage by rolling hard to the basket, converting high-percentage looks that stabilized the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -55.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 19.4m -9.6
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Spot-up reliability from the corners punished defensive rotations and provided crucial offensive spacing. Combined with sturdy post defense against bigger matchups, his low-mistake approach yielded a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.6%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 19.2m -9.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 13.9m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Maximized a brief rotational stint by making quick, decisive reads and avoiding costly turnovers. His willingness to crash the glass and execute defensive assignments without fouling kept the second unit humming.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 13.9m -6.9
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 13.8m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Defensive connectivity remained a bright spot, as he navigated screens well to disrupt perimeter actions. Yet, his extreme passivity on offense allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, resulting in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 13.8m -6.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Barely saw the floor during a fleeting substitution pattern. Managed to execute one solid defensive rotation before being subbed back out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 1.6m -0.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 1.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A quick hook after a rushed offensive possession defined this microscopic stint. Failed to register any meaningful defensive resistance during his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.6m -0.8
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