GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 34.5m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Despite struggling to find his touch on contested drives, his relentless pace and ball pressure (+4.8 Def) kept his overall impact in the green. He compensated for the missed layups by aggressively chasing down long rebounds and diving for loose balls (+5.4 Hustle). A crucial sequence of back-to-back deflections late in the fourth quarter showcased his commitment to winning the margins.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 34.5m -18.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Devin Vassell 33.5m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.3

A severe lack of offensive aggression resulted in empty minutes, as he deferred too often against physical perimeter defense. Careless passing in traffic fueled a disastrous net rating (-10.3), handing the opposition easy transition opportunities. His inability to navigate through off-ball screens allowed his matchup to roam freely all night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 33.5m -18.4
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Clanking open spot-up looks completely negated the value of his excellent weak-side rim rotations (+6.3 Def). He consistently positioned himself well to disrupt passing lanes, but the resulting offensive possessions ended in rushed, out-of-rhythm jumpers. A frustrating third-quarter stretch defined his night, where solid defensive stops were immediately followed by forced offensive errors.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 33.1m -18.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
32
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+26.8

Absolute sheer dominance on both ends of the floor yielded an astronomical impact score (+26.8), driven by terrifying rim-deterrence and fluid perimeter shot-creation. He completely demoralized the opposing frontcourt during a third-quarter takeover, seamlessly transitioning from blocking shots to draining trailing threes. His unique blend of length and fluidity created matchup nightmares that the defense simply could not solve.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +24.6
Hustle +6.7
Defense +12.8
Raw total +44.1
Avg player in 31.4m -17.3
Impact +26.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 32.0%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 29.4m
15
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
-5.6

Sloppy ball security completely undermined his playmaking vision, as a string of live-ball turnovers directly fed the opponent's fast break. While he exhibited fantastic energy fighting through screens (+5.0 Hustle), his tendency to over-penetrate into crowded paint areas resulted in costly offensive fouls. The game sped up on him during a chaotic second-quarter stint, erasing the value of his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +37.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 29.4m -16.1
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Passing up open looks from the corner stalled the offensive flow, rendering him a liability on that end of the floor. His inability to contain dribble penetration allowed opposing wings to collapse the defense repeatedly. A completely invisible offensive performance was only slightly mitigated by a handful of timely box-outs (+2.8 Hustle).

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 21.9m -12.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Bully-ball drives to the rim generated highly efficient offense, allowing him to maintain a positive net rating despite minimal defensive resistance. He effectively exploited mismatches in the post during a productive second-half burst, finishing through contact with ease. However, slow closeouts on the perimeter prevented his impact score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 20.6m -11.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 19.6m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.0

Flawless execution as a roll man and exceptional positional defense (+7.3 Def) resulted in a massive per-minute impact. He completely neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll attack by utilizing his size in drop coverage to take away lob threats. A flawless stint of rim-running in the first half established a vertical spacing threat that opened up the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.3
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 19.6m -10.8
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Getting consistently targeted in pick-and-roll actions bled points on the defensive end (-1.0 Def), dragging his overall rating into the red. He showed flashes of scoring potential, but poor shot selection early in the shot clock resulted in wasted possessions. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him on switches during a damaging fourth-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.0
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 16.0m -8.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 33.8m
22
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Scoring efficiency from beyond the arc masked a tendency to stall the offense with isolation-heavy possessions. His overall net rating barely broke even (+0.2) because of costly defensive miscommunications against pick-and-roll actions. A late-game stretch of forced jumpers ultimately capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 33.8m -18.6
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 33.0m
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-18.3

An abysmal shot selection profile completely cratered his overall impact (-18.3) as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range pull-ups. Even a commendable effort tracking back in transition (+3.6 Def) couldn't salvage the damage done by his wasted offensive possessions. Opposing wings effectively neutralized him by crowding his airspace the moment he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/14 (14.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense -8.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 33.0m -18.1
Impact -18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 31.6m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Despite a high volume of perimeter misses dragging down his offensive efficiency, his constant off-ball movement generated crucial spacing. A steady stream of loose ball recoveries (+3.5 hustle) kept his overall impact firmly in the green. He consistently punished late closeouts during Charlotte's second-half runs.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 31.6m -17.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 21.9m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

Active hands in the passing lanes fueled a massive defensive rating (+8.1) and ignited several easy fast-break opportunities. He dictated the tempo beautifully during a flawless second-quarter stint, opting for quick perimeter ball reversals rather than over-dribbling. This disciplined approach to floor generalship maximized his two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -53.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.1
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 21.9m -11.9
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Moussa Diabaté 21.4m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Broken finishing around the basket tanked his offensive value after a strong five-game stretch of high-percentage looks. While he stayed active on the glass to generate second-chance opportunities, the inability to convert those point-blank putbacks resulted in empty trips. His physical screen-setting remained a bright spot in an otherwise clunky outing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 21.4m -11.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Coby White 26.2m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Relentless downhill attacking forced the defense to collapse, opening up secondary passing windows even when his own three-ball wasn't falling. His point-of-attack pressure (+4.0 Def) disrupted the opposing guards' rhythm during a pivotal first-half stretch. Playing with a controlled pace allowed him to generate high-quality looks without bleeding value through live-ball mistakes.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 26.2m -14.3
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Bricklaying from the corners severely handicapped the half-court offense, neutralizing the spacing he was supposed to provide. He managed to avoid a catastrophic net rating by throwing his body around in the paint, racking up deflections and hard box-outs (+5.3 Hustle). A grueling matchup against bigger forwards forced him into a pure gritty utility role.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 21.9m -12.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
Josh Green 18.1m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Getting caught ball-watching on the perimeter allowed his matchups to generate clean backdoor cuts, dragging his overall impact into the red. He found success spacing the floor offensively, but a lack of secondary playmaking limited his utility. His inability to navigate off-ball screens proved to be a persistent liability throughout his shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +46.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 18.1m -9.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Elite rim protection anchored his positive rating, as he consistently altered floaters and layups without committing fouls (+8.1 Def). Though practically invisible as a scoring threat, his disciplined drop coverage completely shut down the opponent's interior attack. A crucial sequence of back-to-back vertical contests in the third quarter highlighted his defensive mastery.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.1
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 17.8m -9.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
Sion James 14.4m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Complete offensive passivity made his team play four-on-five on that end of the floor, dragging his net score deep into the negatives. He failed to make any meaningful rotations defensively, routinely arriving a half-step late to closeouts. A brief stint in the second quarter exposed his hesitation to attack off the catch, stalling multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 14.4m -7.9
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0