GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Onyeka Okongwu 37.1m
15
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.3

Stepping out to the perimeter too frequently resulted in a dip in efficiency that dragged down his impact. He abandoned his interior advantage against smaller defenders, neutralizing his overall effectiveness. While his rim protection remained stout, the missed jumpers led to empty trips and transition opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 37.1m -18.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 36.9m
24
pts
15
reb
13
ast
Impact
+6.7

Masterful playmaking from the forward spot and dominant help defense dictated the flow of the game. He consistently collapsed the defense on drives before spraying out to open shooters. A towering defensive presence at the rim fortified his highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 36.9m -18.4
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
41
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+24.4

An absolute nuclear shooting display from beyond the arc shattered the opponent's defensive scheme. He paired this historic offensive explosion with suffocating point-of-attack defense, turning deflections into transition threes. This was a masterclass in two-way dominance driven by elite shot-making and perimeter pressure.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 9/14 (64.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 82.1%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +33.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +42.8
Avg player in 36.8m -18.4
Impact +24.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dyson Daniels 35.7m
15
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.8

Relentless activity on the glass and elite defensive disruption fueled a massive two-way performance. He thrived as a slasher, exploiting gaps in the defense rather than settling for jumpers. His exceptional hustle metrics reflect a player who consistently won 50/50 balls and generated extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 35.7m -18.0
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 31.6m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.5

A disastrous shooting slump completely derailed the offense during his minutes on the floor. He repeatedly forced contested pull-ups early in the clock, short-circuiting the team's ball movement. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't mask the damage caused by his bricked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.2%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +27.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 31.6m -15.8
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Forcing the issue in isolation led to contested, low-percentage looks that stalled the offensive flow. He repeatedly drove into traffic without a bailout plan, resulting in empty possessions. The lack of offensive flow heavily outweighed his adequate on-ball defense.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 19.0m -9.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 10.9m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Efficient finishing as a roll man provided a solid offensive punch during his rotation minutes. However, he struggled heavily in drop coverage, allowing guards to walk into comfortable mid-range pull-ups. His pristine shot selection was just enough to outpace his defensive vulnerabilities.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 10.9m -5.5
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 10.2m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

High-energy hustle plays kept him marginally afloat despite offering zero offensive gravity. He chased shooters relentlessly through screens but was entirely ignored by the defense on the other end. The offensive limitations ultimately outweighed his gritty perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 10.2m -5.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball severely limited his impact in a short stint. He failed to attack closeouts or make decisive reads, allowing the defense to rest. A lack of aggression essentially rendered his minutes empty.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +44.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 9.8m -4.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Completely invisible on the offensive end, he failed to apply any pressure on the rim or space the floor. His inability to secure positioning allowed opponents to dictate the physical terms of the matchup. The lack of engagement resulted in a quick hook and a negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 7.7m -3.8
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Rushing his perimeter looks prevented him from finding a rhythm in a very brief appearance. He provided no resistance or playmaking to supplement the missed shots. A completely one-dimensional stint that failed to move the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -47.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 4.2m -2.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 33.4m
18
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.6

Missing 10 attempts from the field drove his negative net rating despite strong defensive engagement. He settled for heavily contested mid-range looks instead of attacking the rim, crippling the half-court spacing. His effort on the glass and hustle plays couldn't salvage the massive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 11/16 (68.8%)
Advanced
TS% 44.9%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 33.4m -16.7
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 31.2m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.4

Requiring 16 attempts to generate his scoring output limited his overall efficiency. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack, neutralizing his offensive production. The volume-heavy approach and defensive lapses ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 31.2m -15.6
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 28.4m
8
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.7

Elite defensive pressure and relentless hustle plays (+4.3) were completely overshadowed by a disastrous perimeter shooting performance. Blanking on five attempts from beyond the arc allowed the defense to pack the paint and disrupt the team's rhythm. His relentless point-of-attack defense couldn't compensate for the offensive spacing issues he created.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 28.4m -14.3
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Highly efficient interior finishing and timely floor-spacing anchored a massive positive box score impact. He consistently punished switches in the pick-and-roll, maintaining his recent hot streak of high-percentage looks. Solid positional defense ensured he was a net positive on both ends of the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -25.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 28.2m -14.1
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Bricking six shots from the floor completely tanked his overall impact, dropping well below his recent averages. The inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. While his defensive rotations remained solid (+3.0 Def), the perimeter struggles ultimately stalled the offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 27.8m -13.9
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 19.0m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Sparkplug perimeter shooting and disruptive on-ball defense drove a highly effective bench stint. He capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, punishing the defense for dropping in coverage. Navigating screens flawlessly on the other end cemented his positive two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 19.0m -9.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Jett Howard 18.7m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Streaky perimeter execution wasn't enough to overcome defensive limitations in space. He hunted his shot aggressively but often forced looks early in the shot clock against set defenses. A few blown assignments on off-ball shooters kept his net impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 18.7m -9.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Forcing up ill-advised outside shots derailed his offensive rhythm and led to long rebounds for the opposition. He struggled as a rim protector, often arriving late to help-side rotations. The combination of erratic shot selection and defensive vulnerability resulted in a noticeable negative swing.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 14.3m -7.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 14.1m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Extreme passivity on offense dragged down his overall impact despite making his only attempt. He failed to make himself available as a cutter or spot-up threat, essentially playing four-on-five on that end of the floor. A steep drop-off from his recent aggressive play left him invisible for long stretches.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 14.1m -7.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 14.0m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Excellent defensive positioning and active hands kept him afloat during a low-usage stint. He stayed strictly within his role, avoiding mistakes while providing solid weak-side help. His overall impact zeroed out due to a lack of offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 14.0m -7.0
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Incredible defensive metrics in a micro-stint highlighted a hyper-efficient burst of energy. He immediately locked down his matchup on the perimeter and converted his limited offensive touches seamlessly. This brief but flawless two-way execution provided a massive per-minute boost.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +64.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 5.5m -2.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Capitalizing on deep post position and finishing cleanly at the rim anchored a highly productive short shift. He set bruising screens that freed up the guards, generating value that goes beyond his own scoring. Efficient paint touches drove a steep positive impact in minimal time.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +64.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 5.5m -2.8
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0