GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 43.1m
12
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-22.6

A disastrous marathon shift saw him repeatedly victimized in isolation matchups against quicker wings. His refusal to attack the paint resulted in settling for contested long-range misses, which consistently sparked opponent transition runs. The sheer volume of defensive breakdowns and empty offensive trips cratered the team's performance during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.1m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 43.1m -26.5
Impact -22.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S John Konchar 32.9m
2
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Elite rebounding and disciplined weak-side defense were completely overshadowed by a total refusal to look at the basket. Defenders entirely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to pack the paint and suffocate the primary scorers. This offensive passivity turned half-court sets into a grueling four-on-five slog.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 2.5%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.4
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 32.9m -20.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

High-volume shot creation kept the scoreboard ticking, but defensive lapses at the point of attack muted his overall effectiveness. He frequently lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy layups that erased his offensive gains. A dominant third-quarter scoring flurry was the only thing keeping his impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 28.5m -17.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Kyle Filipowski 24.9m
19
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.8

Absolute dominance in the painted area anchored both sides of the floor during a highly physical matchup. He consistently walled off the rim against driving guards, altering countless shots without fouling to fuel his massive defensive rating. His elite positioning on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +12.1
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 24.9m -15.3
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Keyonte George 24.1m
15
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Tunnel vision and forced jumpers early in the shot clock severely disrupted the team's offensive flow. By continually attacking set defenses without utilizing ball screens, he generated low-quality looks that fed directly into opponent fast breaks. His inability to secure loose balls or long rebounds further compounded the negative swing.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 24.1m -14.8
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Blake Hinson 27.8m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

A one-dimensional approach saw him exclusively hunt perimeter shots while offering zero resistance on the other end of the floor. Opposing wings relentlessly targeted him in isolation, blowing past his flat-footed closeouts for uncontested layups. The defensive bleeding was far too severe for his spot-up shooting to patch over.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense -2.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 27.8m -17.1
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.0

Flashes of dynamic playmaking were ultimately undone by a string of reckless decisions in traffic. He repeatedly drove into collapsing defenses, resulting in live-ball turnovers that gifted the opposition easy transition points. While he found teammates effectively out of the pick-and-roll, the erratic ball security kept him slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 23.9m -14.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Relentless interior physicality simply overwhelmed opposing bigs on the block. He carved out deep post position with ease, converting high-percentage looks and drawing crucial fouls to put the opponent in the penalty early. His sheer motor turned loose balls into guaranteed possessions during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 19.6m -12.0
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevin Love 15.1m
12
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.3

Veteran savvy was on full display as he masterfully manipulated spacing with flawless perimeter execution. His signature outlet passes immediately ignited early offense, catching the retreating defense completely off guard. He anchored the second unit by securing every defensive board in his area and punishing late closeouts.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 15.1m -9.3
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
14
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

Careless ball security erased the value of a highly efficient perimeter shooting display. A string of sloppy passes in traffic directly fed opponent fast breaks, severely damaging his net rating. Even with active hands in the passing lanes, those offensive blunders proved too detrimental.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 35.1m -21.5
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Gui Santos 33.5m
15
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.6

Perimeter struggles dragged down his overall efficiency, as a barrage of missed threes limited his offensive ceiling. However, relentless activity on the glass and disruptive closeouts salvaged his positive impact. His ability to connect plays inside the arc maintained a steady rhythm during half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 33.5m -20.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Draymond Green 32.5m
6
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
-4.1

Playmaking brilliance was offset by a glaring reluctance to score and poor perimeter execution. Opponents completely sagged off him on the perimeter, clogging the paint and stalling the offense during crucial stretches. While his defensive rotations remained sharp, the lack of scoring gravity severely hampered the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 32.5m -19.9
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quinten Post 25.4m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

A disastrous perimeter shooting night completely tanked his overall value, as he repeatedly settled for contested outside looks. This poor shot selection fueled long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite showing flashes of adequate rim protection, his offensive inefficiency was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 25.4m -15.5
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.9

Aggressive downhill drives and timely perimeter shot-making sparked a massive offensive resurgence compared to his recent slump. His two-way dominance was defined by elite point-of-attack defense that consistently blew up opposing pick-and-rolls. This high-energy stint completely shifted the game's momentum during the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 19.9m -12.2
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

An over-reliance on outside jumpers neutralized his usual rim-pressure dynamics. Without his typical cutting gravity, the offense stagnated during his minutes, leading to a slight negative overall impact. He still provided standard point-of-attack disruption, but the empty offensive possessions outweighed the defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 25.5m -15.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
LJ Cryer 16.8m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Stretching the floor with confident perimeter mechanics opened up crucial driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. While his on-ball defense was merely passable, he executed team rotations perfectly to avoid giving up easy advantages. His willingness to let it fly from deep kept the opposing defense stretched thin.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 16.8m -10.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Malevy Leons 13.4m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Passive offensive positioning left his team playing four-on-five on that end of the floor. He repeatedly passed up open looks, stalling ball movement and forcing teammates into late-clock bailouts. A few timely weak-side rotations weren't enough to compensate for the offensive dead weight.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 13.4m -8.2
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

Capitalized on a brief rotation opportunity by attacking closeouts with decisive, straight-line drives. His physical perimeter defense frustrated opposing guards and forced multiple rushed decisions late in the shot clock. This hyper-efficient burst provided a crucial spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 13.2m -8.1
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 12.7m
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped the second unit during his brief stint. Failing to convert on wide-open spot-up opportunities allowed defenders to aggressively double-team the primary creators. Though he competed hard through screens, the lack of scoring threat made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 12.7m -7.8
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Seth Curry 12.2m
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Instant offense materialized the moment he stepped on the floor, punishing drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers. His constant off-ball movement scrambled defensive assignments and generated high-quality looks for the entire unit. He survived defensively by funneling his man toward rim protectors, maximizing his overall value.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 12.2m -7.4
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0