GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S RJ Barrett 39.4m
27
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.2

Aggressive downhill slashing and elite finishing in transition drove a highly efficient offensive performance. He supplemented his scoring with phenomenal effort on 50/50 balls (+9.8 hustle), consistently shifting momentum in Toronto's favor.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +9.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 39.4m -22.2
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brandon Ingram 38.8m
34
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Massive scoring volume masked underlying inefficiencies, as a heavy diet of contested midrange jumpers yielded diminishing returns. Furthermore, his lack of resistance at the point of attack (-0.6 defense) allowed opponents to easily trade baskets, pulling his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.6%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 38.8m -21.7
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 37.6m
14
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.3

Elite rotational awareness and weak-side rim protection fueled an absolutely dominant defensive rating (+9.1). He controlled the tempo entirely through sheer physical effort and elite connective passing, making his mark without needing to dominate the shot chart.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +8.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 37.6m -21.1
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 36.4m
21
pts
18
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.8

Completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt with masterful pick-and-roll finishing and relentless offensive rebounding. His ability to anchor the drop coverage (+5.2 defense) while generating countless second-chance opportunities resulted in a monstrous overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +31.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +42.3
Avg player in 36.4m -20.5
Impact +21.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.0

A disastrous shooting night featuring multiple forced attempts early in the shot clock completely tanked his offensive value. Remarkably, he remained highly engaged on the other end, using quick hands and screen navigation to post an elite defensive rating (+8.4) that prevented his overall score from falling even further.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 33.7m -18.9
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 24.5m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

An inability to space the floor or generate rim pressure severely handicapped the second unit's offensive flow. While he provided adequate point-of-attack defense (+2.3), his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 24.5m -13.7
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Active hands and excellent positional awareness translated into a highly disruptive defensive shift (+5.2). He seamlessly filled the gaps in the frontcourt rotation, using timely cuts and constant motion to remain a positive contributor despite a dip in scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 14.9m -8.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Despite a quiet night offensively, his high-motor closeouts and disciplined perimeter rotations yielded a stellar defensive rating (+5.2). He maximized his short stint by consistently making the right reads and blowing up opponent dribble hand-offs.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 11.8m -6.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Made a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation, converting his lone look at the rim. The sample size was too small to generate any meaningful defensive or hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 2.9m -1.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 37.2m
33
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.2

High-usage playmaking and relentless downhill attacks drove a stellar baseline rating, as he consistently collapsed the defense to create open looks. He paired this offensive engine with surprisingly disruptive point-of-attack defense (+3.2) to round out a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 36.9%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 37.2m -20.8
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Duren 36.6m
20
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Relentless interior positioning yielded high-percentage looks at the rim, continuing a dominant stretch of efficient finishing. His ability to secure contested rebounds and generate extra possessions (+3.6 hustle) anchored the frontcourt production and kept his impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 36.6m -20.4
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 32.8m
21
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

Elite shot selection and flawless perimeter execution drove a massive surge in his baseline offensive metrics. He consistently punished late rotations with decisive catch-and-shoot jumpers, maximizing his touches without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 32.8m -18.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 24.3m
1
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.1

A complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a massive liability during his rotation minutes. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, resulting in a disastrous defensive rating (-2.9) that cratered his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.9
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 24.3m -13.7
Impact -17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 24.1m
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.9

Offensive struggles completely tanked his overall value, as a slew of clanked perimeter attempts stalled Detroit's half-court execution. While his perimeter containment provided a slight defensive boost (+2.3), the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him all night.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 24.1m -13.6
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Caris LeVert 20.2m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Shot creation was erratic, with several forced attempts in isolation dragging down his offensive efficiency. He compensated by applying heavy ball pressure on the perimeter, generating enough defensive value (+3.1) to keep his overall impact near neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 20.2m -11.2
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Opportunistic cutting and excellent shot selection maximized his limited touches on the offensive end. He paired this efficiency with switchable perimeter defense (+2.1), making him a highly effective plug-and-play rotation piece.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 14.6m -8.2
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Passive offensive involvement limited his ability to influence the game, breaking a recent streak of reliable scoring. However, he managed to salvage some value through disciplined closeouts and active hands in passing lanes (+2.2 defense).

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 13.9m -7.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Struggled to find any rhythm within the flow of the offense, forcing low-quality looks that resulted in empty possessions. A complete lack of secondary hustle stats or defensive disruption left his overall impact deeply in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 13.3m -7.5
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

A string of ill-advised perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive rating and killed the second unit's momentum. Compounding the poor shooting, he was frequently beaten off the dribble by quicker guards, leading to a detrimental defensive score (-2.0).

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -2.0
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 11.5m -6.4
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 11.4m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Despite a sharp drop in scoring volume, his relentless energy on the glass and active rim protection (+2.7 defense) kept his minutes productive. He consistently outworked bigger matchups for loose balls, providing a crucial spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 11.4m -6.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2