GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
20
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+3.9

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing in the paint dragged down his usual superstar impact score. However, he compensated for the poor shooting by orchestrating the offense flawlessly and generating consistent defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 33.2m -18.3
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 32.2m
21
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.5

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, anchored by terrifying rim protection that completely deterred interior drives. His flawless roll-man execution and hyper-efficient finishing at the basket drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +33.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +6.8
Defense +11.2
Raw total +41.2
Avg player in 32.2m -17.7
Impact +23.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ajay Mitchell 26.8m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Overcame a brutal shooting night by relentlessly crashing the glass and blowing up pick-and-rolls at the point of attack. His high-motor plays in transition kept his head above water despite the clunky half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 26.8m -14.8
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

Sacrificed all offensive output to focus entirely on elite rebounding and bruising interior defense. By consistently clearing the defensive glass and altering shots, he maintained a neutral impact despite never finding the bottom of the net.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 20.6m -11.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 17.6m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Offensive invisibility and bricked open looks severely hampered the starting unit's spacing. He still provided his trademark physical screen navigation, but the total lack of scoring gravity made it a net-negative performance.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 17.6m -9.8
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.9

Proved that scoring isn't required to dominate a game, acting as a defensive menace who blew up multiple dribble hand-offs. His elite connective passing and relentless hustle plays drove a massive positive rating without needing to shoot.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +7.3
Defense +10.6
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 25.2m -14.0
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
Alex Caruso 21.8m
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.1

Completely flipped the game's momentum with suffocating perimeter defense and highly opportunistic scoring cuts. His ability to turn deflections into immediate transition points resulted in a wildly efficient two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.2
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 21.8m -12.0
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 21.2m
20
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Lethal off-ball movement and quick-trigger shooting punished the defense every time they lost him in rotation. The scoring barrage carried his impact score, completely masking his slight struggles to stay in front of his man on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +51.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 21.2m -11.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Poor perimeter execution and forced shots early in the shot clock disrupted the second unit's offensive flow. He took charges and positioned himself well defensively, but the errant shooting was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 18.6m -10.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jared McCain 17.2m
15
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Caught fire from deep, stretching the defense to its breaking point and opening up driving lanes for the primary creators. His floor-spacing gravity was the sole driver of his positive impact during this crucial bench stint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +34.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 17.2m -9.5
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Failed to find the flow of the game during a disjointed five-minute stretch. A couple of quick defensive lapses and empty offensive trips resulted in a surprisingly steep negative rating for such a short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -84.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 5.5m -3.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 37.3m
19
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-17.7

Shot selection was the primary culprit for a heavily negative impact score, as he settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups instead of driving. While he chased down loose balls to boost his hustle stats, the inefficient volume scoring ultimately stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 37.3m -20.7
Impact -17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Julius Randle 35.4m
32
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.2

Sustained offensive dominance drove a massive positive impact, punishing mismatches in the post and creating high-quality looks. His relentless rim pressure forced defensive rotations all night, anchoring the half-court offense beautifully.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +29.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 35.4m -19.6
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Two-way activity defined this stint, combining elite perimeter shooting with disruptive off-ball defense in the passing lanes. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort, perfectly complementing his highly efficient spot-up role.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 29.6m -16.4
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 28.5m
2
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.0

Despite elite rim protection and active rebounding that spiked his defensive metrics, his inability to finish around the basket severely dragged down his overall impact. Fumbled entry passes and missed bunnies allowed the defense to completely ignore him in the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 28.5m -15.8
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jaden McDaniels 16.1m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.6

Passive offensive positioning and an inability to find his rhythm completely neutralized his usual scoring punch. He became a negative on both ends, frequently getting beat off the dribble to tank his defensive metrics and crater his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.4
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 16.1m -8.9
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 32.5m
18
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Blistering perimeter efficiency masked underlying struggles in defensive rotations and transition containment. Even with a red-hot shooting night, his overall impact dipped into the red due to giving up too many straight-line drives on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 32.5m -17.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 28.1m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Clunky offensive execution and forced attempts from the perimeter cratered his overall value. He provided solid weak-side rim contests, but the empty offensive possessions and poor spacing negated any defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 28.1m -15.5
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Bones Hyland 13.2m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Erratic shot creation and rushed perimeter attempts derailed his offensive impact during his brief rotation minutes. Surprisingly, his point-of-attack defense held up well against backup guards, preventing his overall score from completely bottoming out.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 13.2m -7.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

A complete zero offensively, his reluctance to shoot allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates. He managed to salvage some value through smart positional defense, but the offensive spacing issues were too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 12.2m -6.7
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Maximizing a tiny window of playing time, he immediately attacked the basket and converted efficiently. His downhill aggression in garbage time provided a quick, measurable spark.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Made an instant impression in limited action by securing the glass and finishing his only clean look. Showed good verticality in the paint to generate a quick positive swing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Joe Ingles 1.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Barely registered on the floor during a brief cameo appearance. Did not have enough time to influence the game flow in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.8m -1.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Rushed a couple of late-clock attempts that led to empty possessions during his short stint. The missed shots directly resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 1.8m -1.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0