GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 34.8m
23
pts
10
reb
12
ast
Impact
+7.5

Orchestrated the offense flawlessly from the forward position, leveraging his size to see over traps and deliver pinpoint skip passes. His ability to secure the defensive glass and immediately initiate the break caught the transition defense sleeping repeatedly. This masterful display of dual-threat creation kept the opponent constantly scrambling.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 34.8m -16.3
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
20
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

Ignited the lineup with an absolute masterclass in two-way hustle, constantly diving on the floor to extend critical possessions. His timely perimeter shooting punished defenders who dared to go under screens. This relentless motor and opportunistic scoring made him the ultimate X-factor in the backcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +9.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 34.0m -15.9
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 29.1m
8
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.3

Wreaked absolute havoc as a point-of-attack defender, suffocating ball-handlers and blowing up dribble handoffs. Even with a muted scoring output, his elite connective passing and relentless screen navigation drove winning basketball. He essentially functioned as the defensive quarterback, elevating the entire unit's floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 29.1m -13.6
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 27.2m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.7

Dragged down the offense by stepping out of his comfort zone and bricking multiple perimeter looks. His inability to finish through contact in the paint allowed the defense to shrink the floor without consequence. Despite some decent positional rebounding, these offensive limitations severely handicapped the starting five.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 27.2m -12.8
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 27.0m
30
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Broke the game wide open with a lethal barrage of pull-up jumpers that completely shattered the opposing drop coverage. His shot selection was impeccable, identifying mismatches and ruthlessly exploiting them from beyond the arc. The sheer gravity of his perimeter threat opened up driving lanes for everyone else on the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 27.0m -12.6
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Looked overwhelmed by the physicality of the game, rushing his mechanics and forcing bad looks in traffic. His struggles to navigate off-ball screens also left him a step behind on defensive rotations. The resulting negative impact reflects a young player who let offensive frustration bleed into his overall focus.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 20.1m -9.3
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jock Landale 17.2m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Carved out deep post position with textbook footwork, sealing his man to create high-percentage interior finishes. He also set bruising screens that consistently freed up the guards for downhill attacks. This highly efficient, no-nonsense interior play stabilized the second unit during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 17.2m -8.1
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Punished the defense for losing track of him in transition, constantly sprinting to the corners for high-value looks. His relentless off-ball motion warped the opposing shell, creating driving gaps even when he didn't touch the rock. Capitalizing on every defensive lapse made him a highly efficient spark plug off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +12.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 14.5m -6.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Made his presence felt purely as a weak-side rim protector, altering several shots with his impressive length. However, his offensive rawness was glaring, as he clogged the paint and fumbled away potential scoring chances. He survived analytically only because his defensive rotations were surprisingly crisp.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 13.2m -6.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 11.2m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure, settling for stagnant perimeter swings that bogged down the offense. He was largely invisible on the defensive end, offering zero resistance at the point of attack. This highly passive stint allowed the opponent to comfortably dictate the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 11.2m -5.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Wandered aimlessly through a mop-up duty stint, failing to initiate any structured offense. A couple of defensive miscommunications led to open looks for the opponent, dinging his overall rating. He looked entirely out of sync with the rest of the deep reserves.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Logged garbage-time minutes that carried virtually no weight in the grand scheme of the contest. He converted his only look around the basket but was otherwise just a warm body on the floor. This was a completely inconsequential run designed solely to close out the clock.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Scraped together a slightly positive rating by executing proper closeouts during a fleeting appearance. He didn't force any bad shots, simply swinging the ball and staying out of the way. This was purely rotational filler that didn't move the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Capitalized on a brief window of playing time by attacking a sleeping defense for a quick bucket. He maintained solid defensive positioning, ensuring no easy blow-bys occurred on his watch. It was a fundamentally sound, albeit tiny, sample size of competence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 2.9m -1.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 30.9m
22
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+19.9

Absolutely dominated the game's flow through elite decision-making and relentless off-ball movement. His sky-high hustle metrics reflect a willingness to crash the glass and dive for loose balls that repeatedly broke the opponent's spirit. A lethal combination of high-value shot creation and sheer energy made him the undisputed engine of this unit.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +7.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 30.9m -14.5
Impact +19.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
18
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.6

Masterful point-of-attack defense fueled a massive two-way impact. He constantly disrupted passing lanes, turning deflections directly into easy transition opportunities. This combination of disciplined shot selection and relentless on-ball pressure completely dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.7
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 30.1m -14.2
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jericho Sims 25.5m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.5

Invisible on both ends for long stretches, failing to leverage his athleticism into meaningful rim deterrence. His inability to anchor the drop coverage allowed guards to walk into the paint at will. Even with a few decent loose-ball recoveries, his overall passivity tanked the lineup's ceiling.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 25.5m -11.9
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Myles Turner 24.2m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Generated value entirely through the dirty work, utilizing his length to alter shots and secure vital extra possessions. While his outside jumper remains erratic, his commitment to verticality at the rim kept the interior defense stable. He essentially functioned as a high-end role player to keep his overall impact afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 24.2m -11.4
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 24.0m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

Perimeter inefficiency dragged down his overall value despite decent defensive metrics. Settling for heavily contested looks beyond the arc stifled offensive flow. This stark drop-off from his recent scoring tear rendered him largely ineffective in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 24.0m -11.3
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Bobby Portis 26.6m
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Overcame a brutal shooting slump by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass and generating crucial second-chance opportunities. His shot selection was highly questionable, often forcing contested midrange looks early in the clock. Yet, sheer physicality in the paint provided just enough grit to keep his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +6.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 26.6m -12.4
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
AJ Green 20.8m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Defenders aggressively ran him off his spots on the perimeter, completely neutralizing his usual spacing gravity. Without that outside threat, the half-court offense stagnated whenever he was involved in the action. He also became a target in isolation matchups, bleeding value on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 20.8m -9.8
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Pete Nance 15.5m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

A severe lack of involvement relegated him to cardio duty for most of his minutes. He was consistently outmuscled on block-outs, giving up critical positioning that led to multiple defensive breakdowns. The few loose balls he secured couldn't mask his overall inability to anchor the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 15.5m -7.3
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Settled for heavily contested jumpers instead of attacking closeouts, leading to a string of empty possessions. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter compounded these offensive woes. The resulting negative swing highlighted a player who was completely out of sync with the defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 13.8m -6.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to attempt a single shot during his stint. He salvaged a near-neutral rating by playing disciplined weak-side defense and executing his rotations flawlessly. However, this total lack of aggression allowed his defender to freely roam and double elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 11.9m -5.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Provided absolutely nothing of substance during a brief, forgettable rotation. He was late on multiple closeouts and failed to register a single positive hustle metric. It was a ghost-like performance that forced the coaching staff to quickly pull the plug.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 5.4m -2.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely had time to break a sweat before heading back to the bench. He executed his lone offensive set perfectly but lacked the runway to make a broader imprint on the game. This was essentially a neutral placeholder stint that neither helped nor hurt the overarching game plan.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 4.1m -1.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Brought his trademark chaotic energy to the defensive end, blowing up one pick-and-roll action through sheer effort. Offensively, he was a complete non-factor, strictly acting as a decoy and screener. His brief cameo served only to buy the primary rotation a few moments of rest.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 4.1m -1.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Thomas 3.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Forced the issue immediately upon checking in, chucking up low-percentage looks that derailed the offensive rhythm. His brief stint was defined by a complete lack of ball movement and zero defensive resistance. This kind of tunnel vision actively sabotaged the bench unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 3.2m -1.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0