GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Christian Braun 27.2m
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.2

Absolute dominance on both ends of the floor defined this masterclass performance. Suffocating defense (+6.6) combined with ruthless scoring efficiency yielded a staggering +18.2 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.6
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 27.2m -12.9
Impact +18.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 25.9m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.8

A dramatic scoring drop-off (-63% vs avg) was entirely salvaged by high-effort plays. Elite hustle metrics (+5.0) and unselfish ball movement kept his overall impact positive despite the quiet shooting night.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 25.9m -12.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nikola Jokić 24.8m
8
pts
7
reb
14
ast
Impact
-9.1

An extreme passive streak (-66% scoring vs avg) severely hindered the starting unit's ceiling. Despite elite playmaking, the refusal to look for his own shot and zero hustle plays resulted in a shockingly poor -9.1 total impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 24.8m -11.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Cameron Johnson 23.2m
18
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Flawless perimeter execution generated a massive +17.2 box impact. The hyper-efficient offensive firepower completely overshadowed a slightly negative defensive showing, driving winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +43.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 23.2m -11.0
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Gordon 18.9m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Steady two-way execution kept his impact comfortably in the green. Timely perimeter makes and solid defensive rotations (+3.6) compensated for a slightly reduced scoring load.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 18.9m -9.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Relentless energy defined this breakout performance off the bench. Elite hustle stats (+6.1) and highly efficient shot selection maximized his value, driving a strong +3.6 total impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +6.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 24.0m -11.4
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Inefficient interior finishing severely capped his offensive value. Even with decent defensive metrics (+2.6), missing seven shots around the rim dragged his total impact into the red (-3.8).

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 31.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 19.2m -9.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 19.1m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Continuing a streak of highly efficient shooting, he provided steady two-way stability. Smart shot selection and solid defensive positioning (+2.7) drove a clean, positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 19.1m -9.1
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Poor shooting efficiency threatened to derail his shift, but he found alternate ways to contribute. Surprisingly strong defensive metrics (+4.2) and active hustle (+2.3) kept his head above water.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 18.7m -8.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Despite a slight scoring bump, poor overall efficiency limited his effectiveness. The inability to convert looks consistently resulted in a negative overall swing (-3.1) during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 13.0m -6.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 9.8m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

A bounce-back from recent scoreless outings provided a modest box score boost. However, a complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) left his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 9.8m -4.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 9.1m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided exactly what was needed in a brief 9-minute stint. Active defensive rotations (+1.8) and decent hustle kept the bench unit afloat without forcing the issue offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 9.1m -4.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Perfect shooting in limited garbage-time minutes couldn't mask defensive liabilities (-0.5). A lack of hustle plays (+0.0) contributed to bleeding points during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 7.2m -3.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Dominick Barlow 26.7m
8
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Extended his streak of highly efficient shooting, but it failed to translate into winning basketball (-1.2 Total). The positive hustle and defensive metrics suggest his negative impact stemmed from rotational breakdowns or spacing issues rather than lack of effort.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 26.7m -12.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Quentin Grimes 26.2m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Overall impact cratered (-6.9) due to a cold night from beyond the arc and porous perimeter defense. While he maintained his streak of 50% overall shooting by attacking inside, the missed threes and lack of defensive resistance bled points.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 26.2m -12.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Justin Edwards 24.8m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Impact was suppressed by perimeter struggles and overall inefficiency, requiring 12 shots to generate marginal offense. However, high-level defensive rotations (+4.3) and active hustle (+2.8) kept his overall rating slightly positive despite the bricks.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 24.8m -11.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 22.6m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.6

A sharp regression from his recent scoring tear (-43% vs avg) was compounded by brutal shot selection. Forcing contested looks while offering negative defensive value (-0.5) completely tanked his floor impact.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -38.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 22.6m -10.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Adem Bona 14.8m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Maximized a brief 14-minute shift by anchoring the interior. An elite defensive rating (+5.5) paired with flawless shot selection drove a massive +6.2 overall impact, proving his value as a sparkplug rim protector.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 14.8m -7.0
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
9
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Bizarre shot selection sabotaged an otherwise productive rebounding shift. Launching four three-pointers as a traditional center derailed offensive possessions, dragging his total impact into the red (-2.9) despite strong box score metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 28.1m -13.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.9

Capitalized on increased touches without forcing the issue, driving a highly efficient offensive surge. Strong defensive positioning (+4.7) ensured his scoring translated directly to a positive point differential.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 21.9m -10.5
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

A lethal perimeter barrage defined this breakout performance. Knocking down four triples within the flow of the offense fueled a massive +12.2 box impact, while steady defense protected the margins.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 20.1m -9.6
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

An abysmal shooting performance nearly shot his team out of the game. Miraculously, relentless hustle (+5.5) and elite point-of-attack defense (+7.1) almost entirely offset the offensive damage, salvaging his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.9%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 18.3m -8.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Kyle Lowry 18.3m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

A complete offensive ghosting left a massive void in the rotation. Failing to register a single point or provide any defensive resistance (-0.0) resulted in a catastrophic -10.8 overall impact during his 18 minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.0
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 18.3m -8.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dalen Terry 18.2m
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Solid finishing inside the arc boosted his box metrics, but the underlying impact was negative. A complete lack of rebounding from the wing and slight defensive liabilities (-0.6) allowed opponents to capitalize on his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 18.2m -8.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0