GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
39
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.1

Terrifying perimeter volume combined with elite rim deterrence resulted in a dominant two-way masterclass. He completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme by stepping out and hitting trailing threes in transition. The massive defensive rating stems from altering countless drives that don't even show up as official blocks.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 8/15 (53.3%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.1%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 36.6m -19.2
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 6
S De'Aaron Fox 35.1m
25
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.5

Surgical precision attacking the basket drove an incredibly efficient offensive explosion. He consistently beat the initial point of attack, creating high-percentage looks at the rim rather than settling for jumpers. The relentless downhill pressure completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 35.1m -18.5
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 34.2m
18
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.5

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and diving for loose balls propped up his overall impact. While his perimeter stroke was inconsistent, his willingness to attack closeouts and draw contact kept the defense off balance. The high hustle metrics highlight exactly how he generated value without needing a pure shooting night.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 34.2m -17.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 32.1m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Methodical shot selection and disciplined defensive closeouts kept his impact steadily in the green. He refused to force contested mid-range looks, instead letting the offense come to him. High-level activity in the passing lanes provided a crucial secondary boost to his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 32.1m -16.8
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-19.7

A catastrophic offensive outing defined by forced perimeter looks and a complete lack of secondary playmaking. His inability to hit from outside allowed defenders to aggressively sag into the paint, stalling the entire offensive flow. The complete absence of hustle plays only compounded the damage from his shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -4.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -5.6
Avg player in 26.8m -14.1
Impact -19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 25.9m
9
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

Even with efficient finishing when he did attack, a passive approach to half-court initiation dragged his overall impact down. He frequently deferred to teammates early in the shot clock, disrupting his usual offensive rhythm. The lack of aggressive downhill penetration allowed the defense to stay comfortable.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 25.9m -13.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Struggled to find a rhythm against set defenses, leading to a noticeable drop in his typical offensive production. He was repeatedly walled off on straight-line drives, forcing him into tough, contested angles at the rim. The inability to generate easy transition opportunities kept his overall rating in the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 23.5m -12.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Over-reliance on the three-point shot dragged down his efficiency and overall impact. He settled for early-clock perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts, which bailed out the defense on multiple possessions. The sudden spike in scoring volume was offset by the sheer number of empty possessions it took to get there.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 13.4m -7.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 11.1m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Positional soundness as a drop defender and smart screen-setting kept his impact slightly positive despite poor finishing. He missed several easy looks around the basket that suppressed his offensive ceiling. However, his ability to contest without fouling in the paint provided quiet but essential value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 11.1m -5.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Inserted purely for rebounding purposes on a final sequence. He secured a crucial board but had no opportunity to impact the offensive end. The neutral rating accurately reflects a single-action performance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.7m -0.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

An end-of-quarter cameo that offered no time to influence the game in either direction. He simply occupied space during a final possession. The fractional negative score is merely statistical noise from the lineup's brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.7m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 40.0m
34
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.2

An aggressive downhill mentality fueled a massive offensive surge, completely shattering his recent scoring trends. His ability to consistently collapse the defense off the dribble drove the highly positive impact. Active perimeter defense and disrupting the point of attack further cemented a stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 40.0m -21.0
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 34.3m
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Impact slipped into the red due to untimely perimeter misses and an inability to punish aggressive closeouts. While his defensive rotations and active hands remained solid, the offensive execution fell short of his usual standard. The failure to string together consecutive makes stalled the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 34.3m -18.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jayson Tatum 26.8m
24
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.6

Defensive engagement salvaged a rough perimeter shooting night. Settling for heavily contested above-the-break threes suppressed his overall offensive impact, but he compensated by walling off the paint and disrupting passing lanes. The sheer volume of perimeter misses prevented a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.3%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +6.7
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 26.8m -14.2
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 19.3m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A stark drop in offensive involvement compared to his recent dominant stretch resulted in a perfectly neutral impact. He generated value through screen-setting and offensive glass activity rather than finishing at the rim. The lack of interior touches ultimately capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 19.3m -10.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaylen Brown 14.7m
8
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.9

Limited floor time and a drastic reduction in usage kept his overall influence completely muted. He operated mostly as a facilitator rather than a primary scorer, which neutralized his typical downhill aggression. This passive offensive approach resulted in a slightly negative net rating despite highly efficient shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 14.7m -7.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

Heavy minutes amplified the negative impact of his perimeter struggles and inability to break down defenders off the bounce. He provided excellent energy on loose balls and transition defense, but his offensive limitations stalled half-court possessions. The high hustle metrics were ultimately overshadowed by empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 35.4m -18.6
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Blistering perimeter efficiency completely flipped his recent offensive trajectory and anchored his highly positive impact. He punished defensive drop coverage by stepping confidently into rhythm jumpers. The sheer gravity of his outside shooting opened up the floor for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 33.2m -17.4
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 23.6m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Offensive invisibility tanked his overall rating despite respectable defensive positioning. He failed to establish deep post position or demand the ball, breaking a streak of highly efficient interior performances. The defensive hustle simply couldn't offset the complete lack of offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 23.6m -12.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Brief rotational minutes were defined by defensive stability but an absolute offensive zero-factor. He stayed attached to his assignments on the perimeter, yet his reluctance to look for his own shot made the team play 4-on-5 offensively. This lack of aggression kept his impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 9.7m -5.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely saw the floor in a pure garbage-time cameo. He registered no meaningful actions on either end of the court to sway the metrics. The slight negative rating is purely a byproduct of the lineup's performance during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A situational substitution that yielded no tangible statistical footprint. He executed the offensive set without forcing the issue during his lone minute of action. The neutral rating perfectly reflects a completely uneventful shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Shulga 0.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Burned on a quick defensive rotation during a fleeting appearance, driving the slight negative score. He was caught out of position on a baseline drive that immediately compromised the defensive shell. There was no time to make up the deficit on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 0.9m -0.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0