GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Drake Powell 23.4m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Flashes of perimeter shot-making were entirely undone by poor defensive awareness and costly off-ball fouls. He frequently lost his man on back-door cuts, giving up easy layups that erased his offensive contributions. The inability to string together stops ultimately sank his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -67.4
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 23.4m -12.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Empty scoring volume masked a damaging tendency to force contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock. His inability to connect from deep allowed the defense to leak out in transition, neutralizing his offensive output. Without secondary playmaking or defensive stops to fall back on, his overall impact slipped into the negative.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg -72.1
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 22.3m -11.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 20.7m
2
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.4

Completely neutralized as an offensive threat, failing to establish deep post position or find lob angles against a physical frontcourt. The lack of rim pressure bogged down the half-court spacing, dragging his box score metrics into the gutter. A few decent rim-contests weren't nearly enough to salvage a highly passive performance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -69.2
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 20.7m -10.9
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 17.8m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Kept his head above water through sheer effort, using relentless hustle to compensate for a dreadful shooting night. He consistently fought for loose balls and altered shots around the rim as a weak-side helper. However, his clunky offensive execution and missed interior looks prevented him from making a positive dent in the game.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -75.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 17.8m -9.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 84.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 16.0m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.0

A disastrous offensive outing defined by forced drives into heavy traffic and wildly inaccurate finishing. His inability to read the secondary line of defense led to empty possessions and fueled opponent fast breaks. With his defensive impact also slipping, his minutes were highly detrimental to the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -65.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.2
Raw total -3.6
Avg player in 16.0m -8.4
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Danny Wolf 27.6m
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Balanced the scales perfectly by pairing a rough interior shooting night with excellent positional defense. He acted as a reliable deterrent in the paint, walling off drives and securing tough defensive rebounds in traffic. The defensive discipline entirely offset his struggles to finish through contact on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 27.6m -14.5
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 25.1m
14
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Scoring production masked a lack of defensive resistance that ultimately hurt the team's bottom line. He struggled to stay in front of quicker wings, forcing the defense into rotation and yielding high-quality looks for the opposition. The offensive output simply wasn't efficient enough to cover for the points given back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 25.1m -13.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.1

Extreme passivity on offense and sluggish defensive rotations resulted in a cratered impact score. He failed to make himself available against aggressive denial defense, effectively forcing his team to play four-on-five on that end. The lack of assertiveness combined with defensive lapses made this a highly damaging stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 22.2m -11.7
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 21.0m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Outstanding defensive versatility couldn't rescue an impact score weighed down by poor shot selection. He repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than attacking the rim, stalling out offensive sets. The defensive event creation was notable, but the offensive inefficiency was too steep a hurdle.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 21.0m -11.1
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Ben Saraf 20.0m
10
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.2

Supreme offensive efficiency and smart ball movement drove a highly productive shift. He picked apart defensive rotations with crisp skip passes, ensuring the offense flowed seamlessly without demanding high usage. Combined with solid point-of-attack defense, he proved to be a stabilizing two-way presence.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 20.0m -10.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Found success spotting up from deep but gave it all back by getting lost in pick-and-roll coverage. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his drop coverages, generating easy floaters and wide-open kick-outs. The defensive bleeding ultimately overshadowed a highly efficient shooting performance.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.5
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 12.0m -6.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
E.J. Liddell 12.0m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

An absolute zero offensively, as his inability to space the floor or finish inside allowed defenders to pack the paint. While he offered some mild rim protection, it wasn't enough to justify his presence on the court. The offensive stagnation he caused was the primary driver of his steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 12.0m -6.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 25.8m
21
pts
3
reb
15
ast
Impact
+13.4

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense generated high-value looks for teammates all night. He consistently manipulated drop coverage to open up lob angles, maximizing his floor time despite a few defensive lapses. The sheer volume of high-leverage playmaking drove his elite overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 92.8%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +75.5
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 25.8m -13.6
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 22.6m
26
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.3

Completely overwhelmed the interior with relentless vertical spacing and elite finishing through contact. Brooklyn had no physical answer for his rim-runs out of the pick-and-roll, while his staggering defensive presence deterred drives on the other end. This dominant two-way paint enforcement anchored Detroit's most productive stretches.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +54.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +36.1
Avg player in 22.6m -11.8
Impact +24.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 21.9m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.7

A stark departure from his recent efficient stretch, as forced isolation attempts against set defenses torpedoed his offensive value. He settled for contested mid-range jumpers rather than attacking the paint, bleeding crucial possessions. A few solid defensive rotations saved his impact from cratering further, but the offensive stagnation was too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +48.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 21.9m -11.5
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Sasser 20.6m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by hunting high-quality catch-and-shoot opportunities rather than forcing off-the-dribble looks. His point-of-attack pressure disrupted Brooklyn's secondary ball-handlers, generating a strong defensive boost. The combination of sudden perimeter efficiency and aggressive perimeter defense fueled a highly positive shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +70.7
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 20.6m -10.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 16.1m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.6

Flawless perimeter execution drove a massive offensive rating during his brief stint on the floor. His constant off-ball motion forced Brooklyn's defenders into miscommunications, creating wide-open looks that he buried without hesitation. The defensive metrics dipped slightly, but his sheer shot-making gravity more than compensated.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 16.1m -8.4
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Increased scoring volume masked a highly inefficient shot diet that dragged down his overall rating. Settling for contested early-clock triples short-circuited several offensive possessions, giving value back to the opponent in transition. While his hustle kept him engaged, the poor shot selection ultimately yielded a negative net return.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 29.7m -15.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Earned his positive rating entirely in the margins by crashing the glass and blowing up passing lanes. His ability to navigate screens and stick to shooters elevated the secondary unit's defensive metrics. Though his offensive usage was minimal, the high-motor plays provided crucial stability.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.7
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 23.2m -12.2
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Missed bunnies around the rim and clunky offensive execution severely limited his effectiveness on that end of the floor. He managed to salvage some value through sturdy post defense and timely weak-side rotations. However, the inability to capitalize on offensive mismatches kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 22.4m -11.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.9

Defensive tenacity was the absolute driving force here, as he completely locked down his perimeter assignments to generate a massive defensive rating. He racked up deflections and blew up multiple dribble hand-offs, fueling transition opportunities. Even with a middling shooting performance, his relentless energy dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +4.9
Defense +12.3
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 22.2m -11.7
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.0

A perfectly neutral outing where his defensive effort and active hands balanced out a cold shooting night. Brooklyn aggressively closed out on his perimeter touches, forcing him into difficult floaters that failed to drop. He found ways to contribute without scoring, keeping his impact from slipping into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +39.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 21.6m -11.3
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 7.7m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Maximized a brief rotational stint by finishing everything around the basket and keeping possessions alive. He capitalized on a sluggish opposing frontcourt by beating them down the floor for easy transition seals. This hyper-efficient burst of energy pushed his impact score firmly into the green despite limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 7.7m -4.0
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Struggled to find the speed of the game during a short stint, getting caught out of position on multiple defensive rotations. Opponents targeted his side of the floor, leading to a quick bleed of points that dragged down his rating. A single made perimeter shot wasn't enough to offset the defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 6.3m -3.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0