GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 31.4m
30
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

High-volume scoring and steady perimeter efficiency kept his impact firmly in the green. However, his overall score was slightly muted relative to his massive offensive output due to average hustle metrics and occasional defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +43.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 31.4m -18.4
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 30.4m
16
pts
12
reb
13
ast
Impact
+15.2

Masterful playmaking and dominant defensive positioning fueled an elite overall impact despite a lighter scoring load. He controlled the entire geometry of the floor, generating high-quality looks for teammates while shutting down the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +44.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +13.9
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 30.4m -17.7
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 5
S Christian Braun 26.1m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.2

Hyper-efficient shot selection and relentless off-ball cutting resulted in a massive surge in offensive value. He punished defensive lapses perfectly, pairing his scoring burst with disruptive perimeter defense to dominate his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 26.1m -15.2
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cameron Johnson 24.8m
17
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.2

Elite two-way execution drove a massive positive impact, highlighted by lethal perimeter efficiency. He perfectly complemented his floor-spacing with excellent defensive rotations, proving to be the ultimate high-end role player in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +45.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 24.8m -14.5
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Aaron Gordon 22.5m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

A complete disappearance on the offensive end tanked his value, as he failed to exploit mismatches in the paint. Without his usual physical rim pressure, the offense lacked its typical dynamic vertical spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +43.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 22.5m -13.2
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Hot perimeter shooting masked a performance that was otherwise hollow in the margins. A complete lack of defensive resistance and zero hustle plays dragged his overall net impact into the negative despite the bench scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +42.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 21.1m -12.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 19.7m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

A low-volume, passive offensive showing broke his usual rhythm and tanked his overall value. He failed to provide his typical downhill pressure, resulting in a stagnant performance that dragged down the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 19.7m -11.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Strong defensive metrics couldn't save his impact score from the damage of being a total offensive zero. His inability to pressure the rim or space the floor allowed defenders to sag off completely, stalling the unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg +43.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 19.7m -11.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.4

Flawless interior finishing drove a massive positive impact in highly condensed minutes. He bullied his way to perfect efficiency around the basket, completely overwhelming the opposing frontcourt despite poor defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.5
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 11.7m -6.8
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Perfect perimeter execution in limited minutes provided a quick, highly efficient boost to his impact score. He maximized his brief run by capitalizing on every open look and maintaining solid defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 7.5m -4.4
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 7.5m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Failing to leave a meaningful imprint on the game, he floated through his brief stint on the floor. A lack of playmaking aggression and minimal defensive disruption resulted in a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 7.5m -4.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 5.8m
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Solid defensive rotations were entirely undone by missed shots and empty offensive possessions. He couldn't convert around the rim, making him an offensive liability during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 5.8m -3.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Scraping together a positive impact, he relied entirely on rebounding and defensive positioning rather than scoring. His physical presence on the glass compensated for his inability to find the bottom of the net.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 5.8m -3.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Hitting a timely perimeter shot nudged his overall impact into the green during mop-up duty. He played within himself, avoiding mistakes and providing steady enough defense to survive his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 5.8m -3.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 30.2m
16
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

Keeping his hyper-efficient finishing streak alive wasn't enough to prevent a negative overall impact. A complete lack of perimeter spacing allowed defenders to pack the paint against his unit, neutralizing the value of his interior scoring.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 30.2m -17.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

A sharp drop in offensive volume dragged his overall impact into the red despite respectable defensive metrics. He failed to generate his usual scoring gravity, settling for a subdued role that left the starting unit lacking punch.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 27.9m -16.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kevin Durant 26.1m
11
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.7

An uncharacteristically passive offensive approach tanked his overall value, as he passed up looks he normally dominates. This massive drop in scoring volume left the offense stagnant during his minutes, completely neutralizing his usual superstar gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 26.1m -15.2
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 24.2m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite hustle metrics and strong defensive positioning kept his head above water even as his scoring volume was halved. He maintained his highly efficient interior finishing streak but simply didn't command the ball enough to dictate the flow of the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +7.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 24.2m -14.2
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Tari Eason 21.6m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Bricklaying from beyond the arc severely capped his offensive ceiling, nearly erasing his otherwise solid contributions. His overall value was salvaged entirely by his high-motor activity on the glass and disruptive defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 21.6m -12.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Horrific perimeter efficiency absolutely cratered his overall impact despite excellent defensive metrics. He shot his team out of possessions by forcing looks from deep, turning what should have been a solid two-way performance into a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -52.9
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.7
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 27.1m -15.9
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Clint Capela 23.8m
9
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Bouncing back from a quiet stretch, he anchored the paint and capitalized on easy dump-offs around the rim. His stout defensive presence and sudden resurgence as a vertical threat made him a highly effective rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -44.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 23.8m -14.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Josh Okogie 23.6m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

A sudden offensive eruption completely transformed his typical profile, driving a highly positive impact score. He paired this unexpected perimeter shot-making with his trademark defensive tenacity to swing the momentum off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -46.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 23.6m -13.9
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.8

An abysmal shooting night drove his impact score straight into the basement. Failing to convert on nearly every attempt stalled the offense entirely, while his poor defensive metrics offered zero compensation for the wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 10.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.5
Raw total -5.4
Avg player in 16.0m -9.4
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Poor shot selection and missed perimeter looks kept his impact slightly negative in limited action. While he found ways to get to his spots more frequently than usual, the inability to finish those plays mitigated any real value.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 12.0m -7.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 7.5m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Completely invisible offensively, he missed all his perimeter attempts and failed to generate any spacing gravity. This offensive void in short minutes resulted in a steep negative impact that his marginal defensive contributions couldn't hide.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 7.5m -4.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0