GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Danny Wolf 24.0m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Clanking open looks and forcing bad shots cratered his offensive value, completely overshadowing a genuinely impressive defensive and hustle performance. He worked tirelessly to secure extra possessions but immediately squandered that equity with poor decision-making on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 24.0m -11.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Ziaire Williams 20.4m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

High-motor effort plays and excellent rotational defense kept him in the black despite a noticeable dip in his scoring efficiency. He made his mark by winning 50/50 balls and contesting shots, proving he can positively impact winning even when his jumper is off.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -46.1
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 20.4m -9.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 20.4m
12
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.4

Controlling the glass and finishing reliably around the rim drove a dominant box score metric. He served as a steadying presence in the paint, anchoring the interior defense while punishing mismatches on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -46.1
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 20.4m -9.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Drake Powell 18.4m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

An abysmal shooting performance derailed his night, as a string of forced jumpers led to empty trips and transition opportunities for the opponent. While he tried to compensate with decent defensive effort, the sheer volume of offensive dead ends resulted in a massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 18.4m -8.8
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Nolan Traore 16.1m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Brick after brick from the perimeter destroyed his offensive rhythm and severely damaged the team's half-court spacing. He showed flashes of defensive competence, but his inability to convert even basic looks made him a glaring liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -51.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 16.1m -7.8
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
E.J. Liddell 26.0m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Outstanding rim protection and switchability highlighted a stellar defensive shift, but his offensive game was a complete black hole. Missing all of his outside attempts allowed defenders to sag off him, clogging the paint and ultimately dragging his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 26.0m -12.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.2

Surgical precision on the offensive end fueled a monstrous box score impact, as he relentlessly exploited mismatches for high-percentage looks. He supplemented this elite scoring efficiency with timely hustle plays, cementing his status as the primary driver of the team's success in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 25.4m -12.3
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 24.5m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

A massive leap in scoring efficiency compared to his recent slump was paired with excellent perimeter defense. However, minor rotational mistakes and a lack of overall volume kept his final impact score hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 24.5m -11.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Saraf 23.6m
15
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

An absolute masterclass in point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow and generated an elite defensive rating. He capitalized on the resulting stops by pushing the pace, putting together a brilliantly balanced two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.9
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 23.6m -11.5
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Perimeter shot-making inflated his box score, but a complete lack of secondary contributions left him as a net negative. He failed to generate any meaningful hustle plays or defensive stops, meaning his scoring burst wasn't enough to offset what he gave up on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 23.2m -11.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

Struggling to find any rhythm, his poor shot selection and inability to stay in front of his man compounded into a highly detrimental performance. The offense stagnated during his minutes, and his defensive lapses only widened the deficit.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 18.0m -8.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 33.6m
18
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.1

Relentless energy yielded excellent hustle metrics, but a brutal shooting night severely handicapped his overall value. Forcing contested looks led to empty possessions, completely erasing the positive equity he built through his defensive rotations and loose-ball recoveries.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 33.6m -16.2
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jerami Grant 31.9m
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.8

Offensive struggles dragged down a solid defensive effort, as his inefficient shot selection stifled Portland's half-court rhythm. Despite generating positive value on the defensive end, his inability to convert at his usual rate ultimately resulted in a net-negative impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 31.9m -15.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 31.7m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

Elite two-way execution defined this outing, with hyper-efficient finishing at the rim driving a massive positive box score metric. He paired that offensive precision with suffocating perimeter defense, completely tilting the floor in Portland's favor whenever he was out there.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 31.7m -15.3
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 11.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 27.3m
11
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

A sharp decline in his usual scoring volume was offset by trademark defensive disruption and high-IQ hustle plays. Even when his jumper wasn't falling, his ability to blow up opposing actions at the point of attack kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +54.9
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 27.3m -13.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 24.4m
14
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Dominating the interior matchups allowed him to double his usual scoring output while anchoring the paint defensively. His sheer physical presence generated highly valuable hustle metrics and deterred opponents at the rim, resulting in a stellar overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 24.4m -11.8
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Murray 24.6m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Flawless shot selection and capitalizing on defensive breakdowns allowed him to nearly triple his usual scoring average. He thrived as an opportunistic cutter and spot-up threat, providing a highly efficient offensive boost without sacrificing defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.1%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 24.6m -11.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 20.5m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.2

Complete offensive invisibility created a 4-on-5 situation that severely damaged the team's spacing and flow. Although he wasn't a liability defensively, his inability to apply any rim pressure or scoring threat resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 20.5m -9.9
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Defensive lapses at the point of attack dragged his net rating into the red despite a highly productive offensive showing. While his downhill penetration and shot creation were effective, getting consistently beat off the dribble gave that value right back.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.5
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 19.8m -9.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Wreaking havoc in passing lanes and generating extra possessions through sheer activity kept him in the positives. His offensive output was nearly non-existent, but his specialized role as a disruptive defensive agent served its exact purpose during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 15.3m -7.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A brief, low-event stint yielded perfect shooting but failed to move the needle in the broader context of the game. A complete lack of hustle plays or tangible defensive disruption left him as a slight net negative during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -58.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 7.8m -3.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Maximized a very brief cameo by executing his assignments flawlessly and converting his only look at the basket. His quick rotational defense provided a minor but noticeable spark in garbage time.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 3.1m -1.5
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0