GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 37.1m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.5

The tone was set early by his smothering point-of-attack defense, which completely erased his primary assignment from the game plan. Pairing this defensive masterclass with highly efficient slashing punished closeouts with decisive drives to the rim. Navigating screens to blow up dribble handoffs was the defining feature of this dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +9.1
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 37.1m -20.6
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Rudy Gobert 36.9m
9
pts
19
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Suffocating any second-chance opportunities for the opposition was the direct result of him monopolizing the defensive glass. His towering presence in the paint altered countless shots and deterred drives before they even materialized. His textbook verticality to stuff a crucial dunk attempt defined his defensive dominance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +11.4
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 36.9m -20.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Ayo Dosunmu 33.8m
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Strong scoring output from consistent dribble penetration was dragged down by poor defensive execution. Despite the flashy offensive numbers, his inability to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack proved costly. A persistent habit of dying on ball screens defined his costly defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 33.8m -18.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 33.1m
32
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.8

Massive scoring surges were generated by his ability to bully defenders in the mid-post, continuing his streak of hyper-efficient shooting nights. He surprisingly paired his offensive dominance with elite defensive engagement and relentless work on the boards. Physical drives that forced early rotations and collapsed the opposing defensive shell defined his massive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 35.8%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense +7.4
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 33.1m -18.5
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 6
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.6

Offensive spacing was completely destroyed by an absolute nightmare of a shooting performance that fueled opponent transition attacks. Trying to compensate with frenetic hustle and aggressive perimeter defense wasn't enough to overcome the sheer volume of empty possessions. A stubborn insistence on launching heavily contested transition threes defined this disastrous outing.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense -7.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 27.8m -15.5
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Bones Hyland 28.9m
22
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.8

Deep, off-the-dribble three-pointers broke the defense's scheme and fueled a massive scoring spike. He was consistently targeted on defense, however, giving back much of what he produced on the other end. His tendency to over-dribble and stall the offense against zone coverage defined his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +33.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 28.9m -16.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.8

Precise passing and timely cuts to the basket allowed him to dissect the defense as a methodical offensive hub. This inability to get back on defense led to a negative overall impact, negating the value of his half-court playmaking. Getting repeatedly burned by leak-outs in transition defined his negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 24.5m -13.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Naz Reid 18.0m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.6

Pristine shooting efficiency was maintained while he showcased elite offensive versatility acting as a secondary playmaker. Defensive mobility allowed the team to seamlessly switch pick-and-rolls without conceding mismatches in the post. A perfectly timed weak-side rotation to block a shot highlighted this brilliant, high-IQ shift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 18.0m -10.1
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
12
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.2

Persistent perimeter brick-laying ruined a performance that otherwise featured solid playmaking and defensive effort. While his orchestration was adequate, his inability to convert open looks ultimately sank his net impact. A pattern of forcing heavily contested floaters in the paint defined his negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 36.7m -20.5
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Devin Booker 35.0m
34
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Severe inefficiency and poor shot selection from beyond the arc largely negated his high-volume scoring output. A slightly negative defensive impact combined with the barrage of missed jumpers resulted in a surprisingly flat overall net rating. His inability to punish aggressive pick-and-roll blitzes defined this frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 11/27 (40.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.4
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 35.0m -19.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Oso Ighodaro 33.7m
16
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.3

Elite roll-man gravity allowed him to dominate the interior and extend his streak of highly efficient shooting games. His massive defensive impact stemmed from flawless switchability on the perimeter and elite rim deterrence. Flawless execution as a screen-setter against drop coverage defined this masterclass in two-way role execution.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +10.6
Raw total +34.1
Avg player in 33.7m -18.8
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Royce O'Neale 29.3m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Excellent spot-up spacing and active perimeter defense were overshadowed by a disastrous plus-minus during his stints. The stark contrast between his solid individual metrics and poor net rating suggests he was targeted heavily during opponent scoring runs. Getting repeatedly burned on back-door cuts defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 29.3m -16.4
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Green 26.6m
9
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.2

A catastrophic shooting slump completely tanked his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the clock. Despite active hands in the passing lanes and solid loose-ball recovery, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions dragged his net impact into the red. His inability to finish through contact at the rim defined this highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 3/17 (17.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.2%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 26.6m -14.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Dreadful shooting was almost entirely offset by his relentless energy on the glass and elite defensive disruption. Generating extra possessions through sheer willpower was a major plus, but his offensive limitations stalled the second unit's momentum. A frustrating pattern of blowing point-blank layups in traffic defined his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 23.8m -13.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 17.0m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

He maximized his limited minutes by capitalizing on every offensive opportunity without forcing the issue. Maintaining solid positional discipline on defense kept the ball moving within the flow of the offense. Perfect timing on baseline cuts defined this perfectly optimized low-usage shift.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 17.0m -9.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Struggles inside the arc offset the solid floor-spacing element he provided by knocking down open perimeter shots. Sluggish defensive rotations led to a mediocre defensive rating that failed to cover for his missed interior attempts. Consistently losing track of his man on weak-side box-outs defined his negative stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -56.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 15.3m -8.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Quiet offensive production fell well below his recent averages because he struggled to establish deep post position. While he provided adequate rim protection, his inability to anchor the paint effectively allowed opponents to capitalize on second-chance looks. Getting consistently sealed out of the paint by smaller players defined his struggles on the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 11.6m -6.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

This low-event, mistake-free shift kept the team afloat while the starters rested. He stayed attached to his man on the perimeter but failed to generate any measurable hustle stats. A timely corner three out of a broken play defined his brief cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -46.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 8.9m -5.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Zero statistical production came from a fleeting appearance where he barely saw the floor. He failed to record any meaningful actions before being subbed out. Being caught out of position during a quick opponent fast break entirely drove his negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

His highly ineffective micro-shift actively hurt the team's momentum the moment he stepped on the floor. Offering zero resistance defensively and failing to register any hustle metrics instantly put the offense on its heels. Rushing an ill-advised pull-up jumper early in the shot clock defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0