GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

Relentless screen navigation and elite point-of-attack pressure drove an astronomical hustle rating, completely offsetting his icy perimeter shooting. He embraced the role of a defensive pest, blowing up dribble hand-offs and forcing opposing guards into rushed decisions. The scoring efficiency dipped from his recent tear, but his sheer two-way motor dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +10.1
Defense +9.3
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 36.4m -17.5
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Johnson 36.3m
21
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+9.4

Dictated the flow of the offense by combining sharp perimeter execution with excellent playmaking reads out of the high post. His versatility shined through on the defensive end as well, where his length disrupted multiple pick-and-roll actions. A highly impactful, dual-threat performance that showcased his ability to anchor a lineup on both ends.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 36.3m -17.5
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 30.2m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc torpedoed his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested pull-ups early in the shot clock. Without the threat of his deep ball falling, the offensive spacing cramped, leading to stalled half-court possessions. The volume-heavy, inefficient shot profile was the primary culprit behind his steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 30.2m -14.5
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 30.1m
13
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.1

Elite interior deterrence completely masked a clunky offensive outing where he struggled to find his touch from outside the paint. He anchored the drop coverage beautifully, altering shots at the rim and dominating the physical battles down low. His defensive gravity alone was enough to drive a massive positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.7%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +13.6
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 30.1m -14.5
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 0
S Corey Kispert 20.1m
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Errant perimeter marksmanship prevented him from being a positive difference-maker, as he repeatedly bricked open catch-and-shoot opportunities. He compensated somewhat with high-motor closeouts and active off-ball movement, keeping his hustle metrics strong. Still, his value is tied to spacing the floor, and the missed shots proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 20.1m -9.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.5

Exploded for a massive positive impact by combining lethal spot-up shooting with decisive, straight-line drives to the rim. He exploited defensive closeouts brilliantly, generating high-value looks that spiked his box-score metrics to elite levels. This aggressive offensive approach, paired with sound positional defense, marked a massive leap in his overall production.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 30.6m -14.7
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Completely neutralized as a scoring threat, failing to convert any of his shot attempts against a set defense. He remained engaged defensively and fought hard on the margins, but the utter lack of offensive production created a massive dead weight. His inability to leverage his athleticism in the half-court doomed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 19.3m -9.4
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gabe Vincent 19.1m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Picked his spots perfectly within the flow of the offense, knocking down timely perimeter looks to punish defensive rotations. His real value came on the other end, where his disciplined on-ball tracking neutralized backcourt penetration. A highly effective, low-maintenance shift that provided vital two-way stability.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 19.1m -9.2
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 13.3m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Struggled to establish any physical dominance in the paint, resulting in rushed hooks and missed assignments on the glass. His inability to finish through contact or protect the rim allowed opponents to score easily inside, tanking his overall rating. A passive outing that lacked the bruising interior presence he usually provides.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.0
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 13.3m -6.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.1

Maximized a brief rotational cameo by providing immediate rim-running energy and sharp defensive rotations. His flawless execution in limited action—highlighted by quick, decisive movements in the paint—resulted in a wildly disproportionate positive impact score. A perfect example of hyper-efficient minute maximization.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 4.5m -2.2
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Drake Powell 32.2m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

A heavy volume of forced, contested jumpers cratered his overall impact despite commendable defensive effort. His relentless perimeter ball pressure and strong closeouts generated solid defensive metrics, but the offensive possessions repeatedly stalled in his hands. The scoring bump was purely a product of volume rather than improved execution.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 32.2m -15.5
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ben Saraf 30.6m
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.5

Despite finding better scoring efficiency inside the arc, his overall impact completely bottomed out due to defensive breakdowns and likely costly turnovers. He brought excellent energy to loose balls, yet struggled to stay in front of his primary assignment on the perimeter. The stark contrast between his hustle metrics and total impact highlights a performance defined by chaotic, undisciplined play.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.7
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 30.6m -14.8
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Danny Wolf 28.2m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.9

Poor shot selection from the perimeter severely dragged down his overall impact, as he settled for contested looks rather than working inside. While his active hands generated positive hustle metrics, the offensive inefficiency created a massive negative swing. This marked a stark regression from his recent highly efficient outings.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 28.2m -13.6
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 20.9m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Highly efficient finishing around the rim anchored a steady, positive box-score contribution. His defensive mobility and rim deterrence kept his overall impact above water, though a lack of offensive volume capped his ceiling. Operating strictly within his role, he provided reliable interior stability without forcing bad reads.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 20.9m -10.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 19.6m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Spacing the floor effectively allowed him to generate a strong box-score return and break out of a recent shooting slump. However, his overall impact remained slightly negative due to quiet defensive rotations and an inability to anchor the paint. He thrived as a perimeter release valve but struggled to dictate the physical terms of the matchup.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 19.6m -9.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 24.3m
24
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+22.3

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, fueled by lethal perimeter shot-making and suffocating defensive rotations. He completely blew up opponent actions in the passing lanes, driving an elite defensive score that paired perfectly with his offensive explosion. This performance was defined by his ability to seamlessly translate defensive stops into immediate transition scoring.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.6%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +7.2
Defense +10.8
Raw total +34.0
Avg player in 24.3m -11.7
Impact +22.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Offensive passivity ruined his overall rating, as he completely abandoned the aggressive interior finishing that had defined his recent hot streak. He still contributed by fighting through screens and contesting shots, reflected in his strong hustle numbers. Ultimately, his reluctance to attack favorable matchups left too much value on the table.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 20.1m -9.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Perimeter defensive liabilities severely dragged down his overall rating, as opponents consistently targeted him in isolation. While he managed to salvage some box-score value by knocking down a couple of outside looks, his inability to contain dribble penetration was glaring. This was a sharp step back from his recent two-way consistency.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense -2.6
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 18.3m -8.9
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 16.6m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Faded into the background offensively, failing to generate the downhill pressure that usually defines his game. A lack of meaningful shot creation and passive off-ball movement resulted in a steep drop in overall impact. Even with adequate defensive positioning, his inability to tilt the floor offensively made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 16.6m -8.0
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Terance Mann 15.8m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Capitalized on smart off-ball cutting to generate high-percentage looks at the rim, boosting his offensive efficiency significantly. His disciplined point-of-attack defense disrupted opponent sets and drove a steady positive impact in limited minutes. A hyper-efficient, low-mistake outing that perfectly executed his role.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 15.8m -7.6
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
E.J. Liddell 13.5m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Provided genuine resistance as a weak-side rim protector, elevating his defensive metrics despite a limited workload. His offensive involvement remained minimal, though he finally managed to convert around the basket after a brutal recent shooting slump. The defensive positioning was sound, but he lacked the offensive gravity to push his overall impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 13.5m -6.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2