GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 38.6m
36
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.3

A masterclass in shot selection and lethal perimeter execution drove an astronomical +31.9 box impact. He systematically dismantled drop coverage by punishing defenders with highly efficient pull-up jumpers from the midrange. Active hands in the passing lanes cemented this as a dominant, two-way takeover.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 78.0%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +31.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 38.6m -19.5
Impact +18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

While a surge in scoring volume boosted his box metrics, defensive bleed and aggressive gambles resulted in a negative overall impact. He generated plenty of loose-ball recoveries, but his risk-taking frequently compromised the team's defensive shell. The high-risk, high-reward style ultimately gave back more points than it produced.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 37.8m -19.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 35.1m
22
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.0

Exceptional two-way aggression defined this performance, highlighted by a stellar defensive rating and relentless hustle. He consistently collapsed the defense with hard, straight-line drives while fighting through screens on the other end. This high-motor approach set a physical tone that opponents struggled to match.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 35.1m -17.9
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 31.4m
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.8

Despite solid defensive metrics and active rebounding, an inability to stretch the floor cramped Toronto's half-court spacing. Opposing bigs sagged off him entirely, which clogged the driving lanes and dragged his overall impact into the red. His offensive passivity during crucial stretches stunted the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 31.4m -16.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jakob Poeltl 21.0m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

A sharp decline in offensive volume and sluggish pick-and-roll defense cratered his overall rating. He was repeatedly exploited in space by quicker guards, leading to a negative defensive impact that compromised the scheme. The lack of his usual interior gravity made Toronto's half-court sets highly predictable.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense -1.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 21.0m -10.7
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Shead 25.4m
6
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite disruption and relentless ball pressure fueled a superb +5.7 hustle rating, completely changing the tempo when he was on the floor. He sacrificed his own scoring volume to operate as a pure facilitator, expertly orchestrating the offense. His point-of-attack tenacity was the defining element of his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 25.4m -12.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Timely perimeter shot-making provided a crucial offensive spark, significantly outperforming his recent scoring averages. He stretched the defense perfectly as a spot-up threat, creating driving lanes for the primary creators. Smart positional defense ensured he remained a net positive throughout his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 24.6m -12.4
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Excellent positioning on the glass and solid weak-side defensive rotations anchored a highly effective stint off the bench. Although his scoring output dipped compared to recent games, his connective passing kept the offense flowing seamlessly. He thrived as a secondary hub against second-unit bigs.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 16.4m -8.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Complete offensive invisibility during a brief stint resulted in a heavily negative overall rating. He failed to register any meaningful stats, floating on the perimeter without applying any pressure to the defense. The lack of shot attempts completely negated his floor-spacing value.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 9.2m -4.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged just a handful of seconds in garbage-time action. There was no time to make any measurable statistical impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 0.5m -0.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Jalen Green 35.3m
34
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.3

Blistering perimeter shot-making drove a massive +20.3 box-score impact, shattering his recent scoring averages. His aggressive off-the-dribble creation completely dictated Phoenix's offensive tempo and forced the defense into constant rotation. Strong situational awareness also yielded a solid +3.8 defensive metric, rounding out a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 8/16 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 35.9%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 35.3m -18.0
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Devin Booker 33.7m
31
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Despite shouldering a heavy offensive load, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive bleed and playmaking stagnation. Operating primarily as an isolation scorer, the lack of ball movement stalled the broader offense during his shifts. Opponents consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll switches to negate his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 62.4%
USG% 37.7%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 33.7m -17.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Royce O'Neale 28.1m
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Clanking open looks from the perimeter tanked his overall impact despite highly disruptive perimeter defense. The inability to punish closeouts stalled offensive momentum during key stretches and allowed opponents to pack the paint. He essentially operated as a one-way specialist tonight, giving back on offense whatever he generated on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 28.1m -14.3
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his overall rating, as he failed to generate any scoring gravity from the perimeter. However, he salvaged some value with pesky point-of-attack defense that disrupted opposing guards and blew up dribble hand-offs. His shifts were defined by high-effort closeouts but zero ability to bend the defense on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 25.8m -13.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Oso Ighodaro 24.1m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

A sudden drop in finishing volume severely limited his effectiveness, snapping a streak of highly efficient interior play. Without his usual rim-running gravity, the floor spacing suffered and his overall impact plummeted. He struggled to anchor the paint during his rotation minutes, frequently getting sealed off by heavier bigs.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/6 (16.7%)
Advanced
TS% 44.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 24.1m -12.2
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

A heavy reliance on drawing fouls masked a poor shooting night from the floor, keeping his box impact afloat. However, defensive miscommunications and giving up straight-line drives pulled his total impact into the negative. His inability to knock down spot-up threes allowed the defense to aggressively sag into the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 29.4m -14.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.7

Flawless perimeter execution and suffocating defensive rotations generated a massive two-way impact in limited minutes. He perfectly executed the 3-and-D archetype, punishing defensive gaps while erasing mistakes on the other end. His weak-side help defense was the defining feature of his highly productive shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +8.7
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 22.9m -11.6
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Quiet offensive involvement and slight defensive lapses resulted in a mildly negative overall showing. He failed to leave a distinct imprint on the game, often floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention. A lack of weak-side playmaking limited his utility during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 18.6m -9.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless energy on loose balls drove a stellar +4.7 hustle rating, injecting life into the transition offense. He capitalized on broken plays and maintained excellent offensive efficiency to bolster a strong box impact. This gritty, blue-collar performance perfectly complemented the primary scorers by generating extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 18.1m -9.3
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Maximized a brief cameo with hyper-efficient positioning and immediate defensive deterrence around the basket. He provided a quick burst of energy that stabilized the second unit's interior presence. This short stint showcased his potential as a situational rim protector against backup centers.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0