GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Jaylin Williams 39.6m
29
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

Completely warped the opposing defensive scheme by catching fire from beyond the arc as a trailing big. His ability to consistently punish drop coverage opened up massive driving lanes for the guards. Paired with excellent positional defense and rim deterrence, this was a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 39.6m -23.5
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
35
pts
9
reb
15
ast
Impact
+22.7

Surgical precision in the mid-range and an elite ability to collapse the defense drove an astronomical positive rating. He dictated the pace of the entire game, consistently making the right read whether finishing through contact or spraying out to shooters. His active hands in passing lanes also sparked multiple high-value transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 14/21 (66.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +38.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +45.8
Avg player in 39.0m -23.1
Impact +22.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Isaiah Joe 32.1m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Provided crucial floor spacing and active defensive hands, yet his overall impact flatlined due to poorly timed rotational breakdowns. While his perimeter gravity kept the defense honest, he was occasionally caught ball-watching on the weak side. The scoring bursts were effectively neutralized by giving up back-door cuts.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 32.1m -19.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 30.4m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.5

Exceptional point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle were entirely undone by a catastrophic shot-selection profile. He repeatedly short-circuited possessions by forcing heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of wasted offensive trips dragged his net impact into the basement.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 30.4m -18.2
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 16.8m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Struggled to convert around the basket, which stalled offensive possessions and fueled transition opportunities going the other way. A step slow on defensive rotations, he failed to provide the point-of-attack resistance usually expected of him. The combination of bricked floaters and defensive mistimings cratered his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -77.1
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 16.8m -9.9
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
24
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.9

Relentless rim pressure and off-the-charts hustle metrics fueled a massive breakout performance. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, generating high-percentage looks in the paint while crashing the glass with ferocity. This downhill aggression completely tilted the floor whenever he was in the game.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +9.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 29.4m -17.4
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 21.5m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Capitalized on defensive attention paid to the primary creators by knocking down spot-up opportunities with high efficiency. His decisive catch-and-shoot mechanics punished late closeouts and kept the offensive flow moving. Solid positional awareness on the other end ensured he didn't give those points right back.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +37.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 21.5m -12.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Broke a string of highly efficient outings by forcing contested looks and failing to connect from deep. His inability to punish defensive rotations stalled the secondary unit's momentum and led to empty possessions. The lack of offensive rhythm directly translated to a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 17.6m -10.4
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

A complete lack of offensive assertion allowed defenders to completely ignore him on the perimeter. This lack of gravity bogged down half-court sets and clogged the paint for the primary drivers. Minor defensive miscommunications further compounded a highly ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 13.5m -7.9
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 40.3m
32
pts
14
reb
13
ast
Impact
+12.2

Masterful offensive orchestration and elite shot selection at all three levels anchored his massive positive impact. He picked apart the defensive coverages with precise reads, punishing double-teams while remaining a highly efficient scoring threat himself. His defensive positioning also quietly neutralized interior threats throughout his heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +28.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +36.2
Avg player in 40.3m -24.0
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Christian Braun 37.8m
4
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.7

Elite perimeter defense and relentless hustle metrics were completely overshadowed by an offensive disappearing act. He passed up open looks and bricked the few perimeter shots he took, allowing defenders to aggressively sag off him. This lack of scoring gravity clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators and tanked his net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 37.8m -22.5
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 36.8m
21
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.6

Inefficient shot-hunting and a complete blank from beyond the arc suppressed his overall value despite heavy usage. While he still generated positive momentum through defensive rotations and secondary playmaking, the sheer volume of empty possessions limited his ceiling. He settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups rather than attacking the rim.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 36.8m -21.9
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Aaron Gordon 28.5m
23
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.6

High-level defensive execution and an uncharacteristic willingness to stretch the floor from deep drove a massive positive rating. He capitalized on mismatches inside while keeping the defense honest on the perimeter. His aggressive offensive posture forced rotations that opened up the entire half-court scheme.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 28.5m -16.9
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 22.7m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

A sharp drop in offensive aggression and poor shot-making derailed his overall impact. Despite generating positive value through hustle plays, his inability to find a rhythm from the perimeter severely limited his floor-spacing gravity. This was a stark departure from his recent highly efficient scoring stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 22.7m -13.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
28
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

A blistering perimeter shooting display masked significant defensive liabilities that dragged his net impact down to neutral. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, bleeding points on one end while catching fire on the other. His floor-spacing was essential, but poor closeouts and blown assignments negated the scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 8/12 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.3
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 33.0m -19.6
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 90.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 16.4m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

Failed to provide his usual spark off the bench, struggling to finish through contact in the paint. Defensive lapses and an inability to disrupt the opponent's rhythm compounded his offensive struggles. The stark drop in finishing efficiency completely derailed his overall utility in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -39.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 16.4m -9.9
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Errant perimeter shooting and missed defensive rotations kept him in the red despite finding some success inside the arc. He was repeatedly late on closeouts, allowing clean looks that offset his scoring contributions. The inability to stretch the floor severely limited his half-court value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 15.5m -9.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided a quick burst of physicality inside before being subbed out due to matchup constraints. He secured his space in the paint effectively but didn't log enough floor time to swing the momentum. His interior presence was solid yet ultimately inconsequential to the final outcome.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -62.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 6.0m -3.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Barely saw the floor and failed to make a tangible mark during a brief rotational cameo. A rushed perimeter attempt and lack of defensive engagement resulted in a slight negative rating. He was essentially a non-factor in the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.0m -1.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0