GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nolan Traore 26.9m
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.4

A brutal combination of forced isolation plays and clanked jumpers overshadowed his genuinely impressive hustle metrics. He repeatedly derailed the offensive flow by dominating the ball and settling for contested looks late in the clock. Despite battling hard on defense, his sheer inefficiency was a major anchor on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 26.9m -13.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 6
S Danny Wolf 22.6m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Sluggish rim-running and an inability to finish through contact severely hampered his effectiveness in the paint. His struggles to convert high-percentage looks bled into his defensive energy, allowing opponents to exploit the interior during his shifts. The negative impact score reflects a player who was consistently a step slow on both ends.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -54.2
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 22.6m -11.4
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 22.6m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

A stark drop in finishing efficiency completely neutralized his usual interior gravity, cratering his net impact. Opposing bigs successfully pushed him out of his preferred spots, forcing awkward, low-percentage attempts near the restricted area. While he provided some rim deterrence, his offensive struggles created a massive deficit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 22.6m -11.4
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Drake Powell 16.4m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Extreme offensive passivity allowed the defense to completely ignore him and overload the strong side of the floor. By failing to make himself a threat or attack closeouts, he inadvertently choked the team's spacing. The resulting stagnant possessions heavily drove his deep negative impact rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 16.4m -8.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 8.0m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Errant shot selection and rushed attempts around the basket quickly derailed his short stint on the floor. Failing to capitalize on his physical advantages, he wasted multiple offensive possessions that fueled opponent fast breaks. His lack of offensive rhythm dragged down the entire unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 8.0m -4.1
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.0

Surgical shot selection and elite finishing around the rim sustained his streak of hyper-efficient performances. He punished defensive rotations by finding the soft spots in the zone and converting nearly every opportunity he touched. His disciplined approach stabilized the offense and drove a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 26.5m -13.4
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ochai Agbaji 19.7m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

An aggressive attempt to break out of a scoring slump resulted in hollow volume that actively hurt the team's offensive rhythm. He hunted his own shot at the expense of ball movement, leading to empty possessions and long rebounds. The scoring bump was entirely negated by the defensive breakdowns that occurred during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 19.7m -9.9
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

An inability to create separation against physical coverage led to a sharp decline in his usual offensive production. He settled for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint, completely stalling the second unit's momentum. His lack of assertiveness allowed the opposition to dictate the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 19.6m -9.9
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 19.2m
15
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

A surge in scoring volume drove a strong box score, but defensive lapses at the point of attack nearly erased his offensive contributions. He consistently broke down his primary defender to get to his spots, yet struggled to navigate screens on the other end of the floor. The result was a high-scoring shift that ultimately played to a near stalemate.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -31.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 19.2m -9.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 17.1m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

While his scoring volume dipped, he completely dominated the game through suffocating perimeter defense and high-motor hustle plays. His ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions and secure long rebounds fueled a massive positive net impact. He proved that elite defensive execution can dictate a game even when the shot attempts aren't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.4
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 17.1m -8.6
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Terance Mann 16.7m
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.4

A complete offensive disappearing act paired with blown defensive assignments resulted in a catastrophic negative net impact. He was actively hunted on the perimeter while offering absolutely zero threat to keep the defense honest on the other end. The team bled points at an alarming rate whenever he stepped on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -47.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense -8.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -5.9
Avg player in 16.7m -8.5
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Timely perimeter shot-making and active hands in the passing lanes salvaged an otherwise inefficient shooting night inside the arc. He generated crucial extra possessions through sheer hustle, offsetting his struggles to finish in traffic. His willingness to do the dirty work kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 14.9m -7.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Flawless execution in a micro-shift provided a sudden spark of energy for the rotation. He maximized his limited touches by knocking down his only look and maintaining strict positional discipline on defense. It was a perfectly optimized cameo that gave the starters a clean breather without bleeding points.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 5.9m -3.0
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A fleeting appearance was marred by a pair of forced jumpers that failed to draw iron. He struggled to integrate into the offensive flow during his brief stint, looking out of sync with the primary ball handlers. Fortunately, his energetic defensive rotations kept the overall impact nearly neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -57.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 4.0m -2.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Aaron Wiggins 33.6m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

An aggressive scoring mentality yielded a massive spike in usage, though it snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient shooting. His defensive awareness kept his overall impact in the green, even as his shot selection forced a few empty possessions. The sheer volume of his downhill attacks kept the defense scrambling.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.9
Defense +7.3
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 33.6m -16.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 28.4m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.9

Despite a sharp dip in his usual offensive production, his overall impact remained overwhelmingly positive due to elite perimeter containment. A massive defensive rating paired with relentless hustle plays completely erased any concerns about his quiet shooting night. He anchored the secondary unit's defensive scheme flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +45.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +9.8
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 28.4m -14.5
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
20
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+19.5

Surgical precision defined this masterclass in efficiency, generating a staggering positive net impact despite taking a backseat in pure volume. By refusing to force bad looks and capitalizing on every defensive lapse, he completely dismantled the opponent's coverage. His ability to dictate the game's flow without dominating the shot clock was elite.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +48.2
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 25.6m -13.0
Impact +19.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ajay Mitchell 22.9m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Efficient interior finishing drove a strong box score metric, but a lack of secondary hustle plays capped his overall ceiling. He executed the offensive system well by taking high-percentage looks inside the arc. However, his shifts were ultimately played to a near-draw due to quiet stretches in transition defense.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 22.9m -11.5
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 21.9m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

A surprisingly passive offensive approach limited his overall footprint, resulting in a rare negative net impact. While his rim protection metrics remained solid, an inability to find his rhythm or demand the ball allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo during his shifts. He was largely neutralized as a focal point.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 21.9m -11.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Jared McCain 28.5m
26
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

A blistering perimeter barrage completely shattered his recent scoring averages and broke the opponent's defensive shell. His willingness to take and make contested deep drops fueled a massive net impact that swung the momentum entirely. He paired that offensive explosion with excellent positional rebounding and loose-ball recovery.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 28.5m -14.5
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 22.8m
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Despite providing decent floor spacing, defensive bleeding during his minutes dragged his overall impact into the red. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, negating the value of his perimeter shot-making. The scoring volume simply couldn't outpace the points surrendered on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 22.8m -11.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.6

An absolute clinic in weak-side help and rotational awareness generated a towering defensive rating. He completely locked down his assignments while simultaneously breaking out of a recent offensive slump with opportunistic cuts to the basket. His gritty, two-way execution was the glue for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +13.6
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 20.9m -10.7
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Flawless floor-spacing and timely hustle plays maximized his brief time on the court. By knocking down every perimeter look he took, he forced opposing bigs out of the paint and opened up driving lanes for the guards. It was a textbook example of a high-leverage role player shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +52.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 14.1m -7.1
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Passive offensive positioning turned his minutes into a virtual cardio session, resulting in a noticeable negative drag on the lineup. By failing to attempt a single shot or generate meaningful defensive pressure, he allowed the opposition to play five-on-four. His lack of aggression severely stalled the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 12.0m -6.1
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Forced perimeter looks in a very limited window quickly tanked his overall metrics. Unable to find the flow of the offense, his rushed shot selection led to long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opponent. The brief cameo was defined by poor situational awareness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.6
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 4.7m -2.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

A brief and disjointed stint yielded a negative impact score, primarily driven by empty offensive possessions. Without enough floor time to establish his usual disruptive defensive rhythm, his missed perimeter looks weighed heavily on the metrics. He was essentially a non-factor in this rotation cycle.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -5.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 4.6m -2.3
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2