GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
35
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+21.5

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency and defensive disruption (+7.7) resulted in a monstrous +21.5 net impact. He systematically dismantled the defensive coverages with surgical drives and flawless shot creation. Dominating his individual matchups on both ends of the floor dictated the entire tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/18 (72.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +27.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +7.7
Raw total +40.6
Avg player in 39.1m -19.1
Impact +21.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 4
S Cason Wallace 30.6m
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Elite point-of-attack defense (+6.5) and relentless hustle were completely overshadowed by an abysmal shooting night. Missing all of his perimeter looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately dragged his net impact deeply into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 30.6m -14.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ajay Mitchell 30.2m
15
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.7

Methodical penetration and highly efficient shot selection drove a strong box score impact (+13.0). He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble to create high-percentage looks in the midrange. Solid, mistake-free execution kept his net rating positive throughout his shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 30.2m -14.7
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 29.4m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Exceptional hustle metrics (+7.5) couldn't mask a one-dimensional offensive approach where he exclusively settled for outside jumpers. A surprising negative grade on defense compounded the damage from his bricked threes. Opponents successfully dared him to shoot, neutralizing his physical driving game.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +7.5
Defense -0.9
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 29.4m -14.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 28.5m
14
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Consistent interior finishing and solid rim protection (+2.8) anchored a steady, positive performance. He controlled the glass effectively, though a lack of playmaking and mediocre perimeter shooting capped his overall ceiling. Forcing opponents to alter their shots in the paint remained his most valuable contribution.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 28.5m -13.9
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Alex Caruso 22.8m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Elite defensive disruption (+6.0) and constant hustle plays completely salvaged a horrific shooting night from beyond the arc. Despite bricking seven threes, his ability to blow up passing lanes and secure loose balls kept his net impact positive. He proved that relentless point-of-attack pressure can offset a broken jumper.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +5.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 22.8m -11.1
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Excellent floor spacing from the frontcourt defined his shift, as he buried key pick-and-pop threes to stretch the defense. Strong hustle plays (+4.8) and timely rotations maximized his value in under 20 minutes. He punished drop coverages perfectly by stepping out and knocking down open looks.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 19.5m -9.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Extending his streak of highly efficient shooting, he capitalized on smart cuts and transition leaks to generate easy offense. Capable defensive rotations (+3.2) kept his overall impact slightly above water. He played entirely within the flow of the offense, never forcing bad shots or stalling the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 15.0m -7.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Isaiah Joe 13.3m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Completely neutralized by tight perimeter coverage, he managed only two shot attempts and saw his scoring plummet. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, his overall impact cratered into the negative. The offense stagnated during his minutes because he couldn't shake loose for catch-and-shoot triggers.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 13.3m -6.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 11.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Forcing bad looks against set defenses ruined his brief stint on the floor, resulting in a disastrous -8.1 impact score. He failed to generate any separation, leading to clanked jumpers and empty possessions. The lack of secondary playmaking or defensive resistance made his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 11.6m -5.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 40.6m
34
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-volume isolation attempts dragged down his overall efficiency, forcing him into a grueling offensive workload. Strong defensive metrics (+5.3) and consistent hustle plays kept his net impact in the green despite the cold perimeter shooting. His ability to draw contact and force the issue inside masked a rough night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 40.6m -19.7
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

Brutal shot selection from the perimeter defined this performance, as he clanked seven threes and tanked his overall impact (-8.2). Stepping into a heavy minute load, the aggressive volume completely backfired compared to his normally efficient standard. Decent hustle plays couldn't salvage a night where his offensive rhythm was entirely out of sync.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 38.7m -18.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.2

Doubling his usual scoring output, he found a groove from the perimeter to generate strong box score value. However, defensive lapses and low-impact hustle numbers dragged his overall net score slightly below zero. His catch-and-shoot gravity opened up the floor, even if his off-ball activity left something to be desired.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 33.5m -16.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 27.3m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

A noticeable slump in perimeter accuracy cratered his offensive value, as he bricked a barrage of looks from deep. Excellent rotational defense (+6.2) prevented this from being a total disaster. Opponents clearly ran him off the line, forcing uncomfortable catch-and-shoot triggers that disrupted his usual rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 27.3m -13.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 26.7m
4
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Snapping a four-game streak of highly efficient finishing, he struggled to convert around the rim and saw his offensive production plummet. He still anchored the paint effectively with a +5.5 defensive rating and solid hustle metrics. The lack of vertical spacing ultimately pushed his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 26.7m -13.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Exploding for a massive scoring surge over his recent baseline, he paired highly efficient finishing with lockdown defensive metrics (+6.6). His relentless energy on both ends created transition opportunities and stifled opponent drives. This two-way intensity proved to be a major catalyst for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.6
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 27.7m -13.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Luka Garza 20.8m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Settling for pick-and-pop threes instead of working the interior ruined his efficiency and snapped a five-game hot streak. A negative defensive impact compounded the offensive struggles, making him a liability during his rotation minutes. He failed to leverage his size inside, letting the defense off the hook by hovering around the arc.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 20.8m -10.1
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Walsh 12.5m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

Capitalizing on spot-up opportunities, he delivered a hyper-efficient scoring punch in just over a dozen minutes. His off-ball movement created clean looks from deep, driving a stellar +6.5 net impact. He maximized a short leash by making quick, decisive reads rather than holding the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 12.5m -6.1
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Breaking out of a scoreless three-game slump, he provided a quick, efficient spark in limited action. Smart shot selection and capable defensive rotations (+2.0) ensured his brief stint was a net positive. He capitalized on broken plays to generate easy looks without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +53.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 12.2m -6.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0