GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 28.8m
21
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.6

Utterly dominated the painted area, pairing a massive +11.3 defensive impact with a scoring output that nearly doubled his recent average. His +5.0 hustle score reflects relentless rim-running and offensive rebounding that constantly punished smaller defenders. Altering virtually every shot in the restricted area, he was the undeniable engine of the team's success.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +41.0
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +11.3
Raw total +36.6
Avg player in 28.8m -18.0
Impact +18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ayo Dosunmu 27.2m
23
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.0

Carved up the defense with decisive downhill drives, translating efficient shot-making into a stellar +18.4 box score impact. He was equally disruptive on the other end (+9.2 Def), hounding ball-handlers and blowing up pick-and-roll sets at the point of attack. His ability to seamlessly transition from defensive stops into fast-break opportunities drove his massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +9.2
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 27.2m -17.0
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 27.0m
21
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.0

Bullying his way to his spots, he extended his streak of hyper-efficient scoring while simultaneously acting as a high-level offensive hub. His defensive engagement was the real separator (+8.0), as he actively closed down passing lanes and rotated with purpose. This dual-threat performance dictated the tempo and overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.0
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 27.0m -16.9
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 26.3m
17
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Leveraged his length effectively to bother shooters, contributing to a solid +4.1 defensive score that kept his overall impact in the green. His shot selection was slightly erratic compared to his recent high-efficiency tear, limiting his offensive ceiling. Navigating through multiple screens to contest late-clock jumpers defined his steady, if unspectacular, shift.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 26.3m -16.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.4

Despite generating chaos with a superb +4.0 hustle rating, his overall impact slipped into the red due to inefficient perimeter execution. A notable drop-off in scoring punch allowed defenders to cheat off him and crowd the paint. His frantic energy created extra possessions, but the inability to capitalize on those chances mitigated his value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 25.8m -16.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bones Hyland 24.9m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

A significant surge in scoring volume masked the underlying defensive vulnerabilities that dragged his total impact to -4.1. He frequently lost his man off the ball, giving back much of the value he created through his perimeter shot-making. The erratic nature of his isolation-heavy approach disrupted the broader offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +53.6
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 24.9m -15.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.7

Tripled his usual meager scoring output, yet his methodical pace often bogged down the half-court offense, resulting in a poor -5.7 total score. Slow defensive rotations left the weak side vulnerable to baseline cuts. While his connective passing was present, his lack of burst proved detrimental against a faster-paced unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 22.3m -13.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Wreaked havoc as an energy forward, using a spectacular +5.1 hustle rating to win 50/50 balls and ignite transition breaks. His defensive metrics (+8.2) spiked as he utilized his elite athleticism to recover and contest shots from behind. Embracing a gritty, high-motor role allowed him to vastly outperform his modest offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +63.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +8.2
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 19.9m -12.5
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Capitalized on a rare offensive rhythm, punishing defensive lapses to score well above his typical baseline. He maintained his defensive discipline (+2.8), staying glued to shooters and fighting through off-ball screens. This balanced, two-way efficiency maximized his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 9.9m -6.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided steady, low-mistake minutes by focusing entirely on rebounding and positional defense. Though his scoring touch vanished, he avoided forcing bad shots and kept the ball moving within the system. His ability to anchor the glass during a crucial second-quarter stretch kept his impact marginally positive.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 9.3m -5.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

Completely neutralized as a scoring threat, extending a brutal shooting slump that allowed defenders to aggressively play the pass. His inability to generate rim pressure stalled the offense, leading to a negative overall impact. Without his usual pick-and-roll gravity, the floor spacing severely suffered.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 6.8m -4.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 6.8m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Bounced back from a scoreless previous outing by exploiting mismatches with clever pacing and timely shot-making. He survived defensively (+1.2) by relying on veteran anticipation rather than foot speed to cut off driving angles. Operating as a secondary playmaker, his high-IQ decisions kept the offense humming efficiently.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 6.8m -4.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

Made the most of a brief cameo by applying relentless ball pressure, earning a solid +2.0 defensive mark in limited action. He took only what the defense gave him offensively, converting his lone opportunity without disrupting the scheme. His disciplined approach to garbage-time minutes showcased reliable end-of-bench utility.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 4.9m -3.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
UTA Utah Jazz
41
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.7

Explosive shot-making fueled a massive +21.9 box score impact, nearly doubling his usual offensive production with relentless isolation attacks. Despite the heavy scoring burden, his defensive engagement (+3.3) remained steady against primary matchups. The sheer volume of high-difficulty conversions papered over any minor lapses in transition defense.

Shooting
FG 17/31 (54.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 37.3m -23.3
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Isaiah Collier 28.0m
14
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.3

Exceptional point-of-attack defense (+7.9) showcased his physical tools, consistently disrupting the opponent's offensive initiation. Unfortunately, erratic decision-making and forced drives into traffic severely dragged down his net impact. The stark contrast between his defensive tenacity and offensive sloppiness defined his stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.9
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 28.0m -17.5
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Cody Williams 24.9m
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

A sharp regression in offensive aggression limited his overall footprint, as evidenced by a steep 59% dip in scoring output compared to recent outings. However, he salvaged a positive net rating through disciplined perimeter rotations that drove a strong +6.0 defensive score. His willingness to contest shots at the rim kept his impact above water despite the quiet shooting night.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 24.9m -15.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ace Bailey 24.9m
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers yielded a solid box score return, but his overall impact cratered to -6.6 due to defensive passivity. Failing to navigate screens effectively left the backline exposed, neutralizing the value of his outside shot-making. A lack of off-ball engagement ultimately outweighed his scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 24.9m -15.6
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kyle Filipowski 22.9m
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

His streak of hyper-efficient scoring abruptly ended, dragging his overall impact into the negative as he struggled to establish deep post position. Even with a commendable +5.9 defensive rating anchored by solid rim protection, the lack of offensive gravity stalled the half-court flow. Missing point-blank looks he usually converts proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 22.9m -14.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Thrived entirely in the margins, using a +3.5 hustle rating to generate extra possessions through relentless offensive glass crashing. While his scoring volume dipped significantly, his switchability on defense (+5.9) suffocated opposing wings. He perfectly executed the role of a low-usage connector who amplifies lineups without needing touches.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 24.1m -15.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Bez Mbeng 20.2m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

An absolute offensive zero in this contest, his inability to bend the defense resulted in a catastrophic -12.1 total impact score. While he provided some minor energy plays (+2.3 hustle), it wasn't nearly enough to compensate for being ignored by opposing schemes. The spacing completely collapsed whenever he operated on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.2%
Net Rtg -44.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 20.2m -12.7
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Continued shooting woes severely hampered his offensive utility, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. He fought hard on the other end to post a +5.7 defensive mark, frequently blowing up dribble handoffs. Still, the inability to punish closeouts rendered him a net negative during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 20.0m -12.5
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kevin Love 14.8m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

A complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) and sluggish lateral movement on switches (-0.6 Def) made him a glaring target in pick-and-roll coverage. Settling for heavily contested outside looks further diminished his value, leading to a steep -7.7 total impact. Opponents actively hunted his matchup, capitalizing on his inability to close out in space.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 14.8m -9.2
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 12.5m
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Faded into the background offensively with a stark 62% drop in scoring production, showing little aggression when attacking closeouts. His trademark hustle was surprisingly absent (+0.0), removing the dirty-work value that usually buoys his impact metrics. Though his team-defense positioning remained sound, the lack of tangible contributions sunk his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -63.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 12.5m -7.8
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Maintained his streak of highly efficient finishing, though a lack of post touches halved his usual scoring output. He offset the lower volume by dominating the interior positioning battles, ensuring a positive net impact in limited minutes. His sturdy screen-setting and physical box-outs quietly anchored the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 10.3m -6.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0