GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 29.5m
25
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Relentless offensive creation and strong weak-side defense anchored a solid positive rating against a tough matchup. He consistently drew double-teams in the mid-post, leveraging his scoring gravity to create secondary advantages for his teammates. His ability to contest shots at the rim as a help defender was crucial in stalling the opponent's downhill attacks.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 29.5m -17.1
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

A severe lack of offensive involvement and poor positioning in the paint tanked his overall impact. He struggled to establish deep post position, frequently allowing smaller defenders to push him completely off his spots. The resulting empty possessions and lack of rim pressure completely derailed the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 27.3m -15.8
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Max Christie 27.0m
12
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

One-dimensional play and frequent defensive lapses drove a heavily negative impact despite a decent scoring output. He was repeatedly targeted on switches during the third quarter, failing to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack. His complete inability to contribute on the glass or as a playmaker made him a liability in the broader flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 27.0m -15.7
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 26.8m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

High-energy two-way play and excellent shot selection fueled a strong net positive performance. He thrived in the transition game, consistently beating the defense down the floor to capitalize on live-ball turnovers. His disruptive perimeter defense forced multiple rushed decisions and completely neutralized his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 26.8m -15.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Nembhard 26.7m
8
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-7.6

Defensive fragility and a complete lack of scoring gravity severely undermined his otherwise solid playmaking contributions. Opposing guards easily blew past him at the point of attack, forcing the interior defense into constant, scrambling rotation. While he orchestrated the offense well, his inability to pressure the rim allowed defenders to aggressively jump the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 26.7m -15.5
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.7

Inefficient shot creation and forced downhill drives dragged his net impact into the negative. He consistently attacked crowded paints without a plan, resulting in difficult, contested attempts that sparked opponent fast breaks. Despite elite hustle metrics, his poor offensive decision-making ultimately outweighed his energetic play.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 21.3m -12.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
11
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.6

Elite screen-setting and dominant positioning on the glass fueled a massive positive impact score. He generated countless extra possessions by simply outworking opposing bigs in the trenches. His timely rotations as a drop defender completely shut off the restricted area and forced opponents into contested floaters.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -56.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.8
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 20.7m -12.1
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

Sluggish offensive execution and a glaring inability to separate from defenders cratered his impact score. He repeatedly settled for heavily contested midrange jumpers, stalling the offensive flow and bailing out the defense. His lack of burst off the dribble was obvious, turning him into a half-court liability during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 17.3m -10.1
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Disastrous perimeter shooting anchored a negative net impact as he repeatedly failed to punish open catch-and-shoot looks. The defense eventually began ignoring him on the weak side, which severely cramped the spacing for the primary ball-handlers. While he competed hard off the ball, the sheer volume of bricked jumpers was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 16.5m -9.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Martin 15.5m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Offensive invisibility and bricked open shots slightly outweighed his otherwise excellent defensive contributions. He was a complete non-factor on the offensive end, allowing his defender to freely roam and double-team the post. His ability to navigate screens defensively kept his minutes playable, but the lack of scoring gravity severely hurt the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -75.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 15.5m -9.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
AJ Johnson 5.8m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A quiet, low-impact stint resulted in a slightly negative rating during his brief time on the floor. He failed to make any meaningful help rotations on defense, allowing a couple of easy straight-line drives to the rim. His offensive touches were simply too scarce to establish any sort of rhythm or positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Rushed perimeter shots and a complete lack of offensive rhythm doomed his short stint on the floor. He fired up three ill-advised triples early in the shot clock, completely killing the team's offensive flow and handing momentum to the opponent. This poor shot selection fueled a negative swing that his decent defensive positioning couldn't fix.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 5.7m -3.3
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 28.9m
17
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.8

Exceptional defensive engagement and active hands in the passing lanes surprisingly anchored his positive rating. He masterfully manipulated the pick-and-roll during the second quarter, dictating the tempo and creating clean looks out of traps. The combination of high hustle metrics and calculated playmaking easily offset a few forced perimeter shots.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +7.5
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 28.9m -16.8
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
24
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.3

Elite downhill penetration and surprisingly stout perimeter defense drove a massive positive impact score. He consistently broke down his primary defender in isolation, collapsing the paint to generate high-quality looks. His aggressive ball pressure disrupted the opponent's rhythm and fueled transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.8
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 28.8m -16.8
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keon Ellis 25.9m
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Excellent point-of-attack defense set the tone, constantly blowing up dribble handoffs to stall the opponent's sets. His highly efficient spot-up shooting from the perimeter maximized his offensive footprint without needing high usage. This two-way balance drove a sturdy positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 25.9m -15.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Evan Mobley 23.2m
29
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.4

Absolute dominance around the rim fueled a massive overall impact, as he ruthlessly exploited drop coverage for easy interior finishes. This scoring clinic completely warped the opponent's defensive shell and opened up the perimeter for his teammates. His sustained efficiency over the last week has transformed him into the primary offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 80.2%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 23.2m -13.5
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dean Wade 17.6m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Extreme offensive passivity anchored his negative net impact, as he frequently passed out of open catch-and-shoot opportunities. While his switchability against bigger forwards provided a solid defensive floor, the lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely roam. He simply didn't generate enough pressure to tilt the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +40.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 17.6m -10.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Excellent rim-running and stout interior defense drove a strong positive impact during his rotation minutes. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, converting high-percentage looks around the basket. His verticality in the paint deterred several drives, firmly anchoring the second unit's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 22.2m -12.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.5

Inconsistent decision-making in the half-court dragged his net impact slightly into the red. While he generated decent rim pressure, several ill-advised passes into traffic during the third quarter killed offensive momentum. His defensive rotations were just a step slow against quicker guards, ultimately negating his playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +47.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 20.9m -12.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 20.0m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

A sharp regression in offensive aggression resulted in a steep negative impact score after a recent hot streak. He struggled to find his rhythm against physical wing defenders, often settling for contested midrange pull-ups rather than attacking the rim. The lack of defensive playmaking meant he couldn't salvage his value when the shots stopped falling.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +37.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 20.0m -11.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Poor perimeter spacing dragged down his overall impact despite a noticeable uptick in his offensive usage. His inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to pack the paint and disrupt the primary ball-handlers. While he showed flashes of defensive versatility, the offensive friction caused by his missed jumpers was too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 17.1m -10.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Flawless shot selection and highly disruptive perimeter defense maximized his limited minutes off the bench. He capitalized on every offensive touch, punishing the defense whenever they sagged off to help inside. His ability to navigate screens and stick to his assignment fueled a highly efficient two-way stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 14.8m -8.6
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

A brief but highly efficient stint kept his net impact in the green during his limited rotation. He made quick, decisive cuts to the basket that consistently punished ball-watching defenders. This low-mistake, opportunistic approach provided a stabilizing presence during a chaotic stretch of the first half.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 6.9m -4.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Forced offensive possessions and poor finishing around the rim cratered his impact score in limited action. He repeatedly drove into traffic against set defenses, resulting in low-quality attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His defensive effort simply wasn't enough to offset the offensive black hole he created.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 6.9m -3.9
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Perfect execution as a floor-spacing big drove a highly positive impact in just under seven minutes of action. He capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities, stretching the opposing frontcourt entirely out of their comfort zone. This flawless offensive cameo completely shifted the momentum during a crucial second-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 6.9m -4.0
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0