GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
34
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+25.3

Generational rim protection (+12.2 Def) and unguardable offensive gravity completely dictated the terms of the game. He swallowed up drivers in the paint while simultaneously punishing drop coverage on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +24.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +12.2
Raw total +41.9
Avg player in 34.9m -16.6
Impact +25.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Bleeding points on the defensive end (-1.0 Def) completely erased the value of his hot perimeter shooting. Opponents relentlessly targeted his lateral quickness in isolation, exposing him on switches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.0
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 33.8m -16.1
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 32.7m
23
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Relentless downhill pressure and elite hustle metrics (+6.5) offset a cold night from beyond the arc. He consistently collapsed the defense on drives to create high-value kickout opportunities for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 32.7m -15.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Devin Vassell 32.6m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

Forcing contested perimeter looks derailed offensive momentum and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. Poor point-of-attack defense compounded the issue, leading to a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 32.6m -15.6
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 23.1m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.8

Veteran positioning and timely closeouts fueled a solid defensive rating without needing to dominate the ball. He generated crucial extra possessions through smart box-outs and loose ball recoveries.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 23.1m -11.0
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 26.5m
5
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.3

A severe regression in shot selection broke his streak of efficient games and stalled the half-court offense. Forcing looks against set defenses led to empty possessions and easy opponent transition points.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 26.5m -12.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Reckless drives into heavy traffic resulted in low-quality attempts that tanked his overall efficiency. He stubbornly challenged elite rim protectors instead of kicking the ball out to open shooters.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 20.2m -9.6
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 15.4m
1
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Inability to finish through contact around the basket snapped his streak of highly efficient outings. He got pushed around on the interior, failing to secure critical contested rebounds.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -49.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 15.4m -7.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Looked lost in defensive rotations during his brief stint, repeatedly giving up open driving lanes. A complete lack of offensive involvement made him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -59.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 10.4m -5.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.1

Masterful defensive pressure (+4.5 Def) and unselfish ball movement drove a highly positive stint without taking a single shot. He disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm by fighting through screens relentlessly.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 10.4m -5.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Jordan Goodwin 35.2m
5
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Elite ball-tracking and relentless perimeter pressure (+11.6 Hustle) completely masked a quiet scoring night. He swung momentum by diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs on the wing.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +11.7
Defense +8.4
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 35.2m -16.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Devin Booker 34.4m
22
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.3

Settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups derailed the half-court rhythm. The offensive inefficiency compounded with sluggish weak-side defensive rotations to create a steep -11.3 net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.0
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 34.4m -16.4
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
24
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.3

Catch-and-shoot lethality completely broke the opposing defensive shell. Punishing late closeouts from the perimeter drove an enormous +22.2 box metric and shattered his recent scoring slump.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 34.2m -16.3
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Oso Ighodaro 34.0m
15
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.9

Surgical execution as a roll man punished the opponent's drop coverage all night. Taking only high-percentage looks at the rim fueled a massive +18.9 box score impact and sustained his elite efficiency streak.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 34.0m -16.1
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Green 33.7m
17
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.0

Defensive engagement was surprisingly strong (+5.7 Def), but clanking perimeter shots allowed the defense to pack the paint. His inability to punish under-screens ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 33.7m -16.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Solid defensive positioning was undone by settling for early-clock perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, pushing his total impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 20.1m -9.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 19.5m
5
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+6.4 Def) kept his value highly positive despite a passive offensive showing. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions by fighting over screens and recovering quickly.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.4
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 19.5m -9.3
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Verticality at the rim deterred several drives during his short stint, anchoring the second-unit defense. He stayed disciplined on pump fakes, ensuring a positive impact without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 13.8m -6.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Stagnant offensive initiation allowed the opposing defense to set up and dictate the tempo. Missing all his attempts let defenders sag off, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +47.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 9.4m -4.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball rendered him invisible during his brief minutes. A complete lack of defensive disruption or hustle plays allowed the opposing bench to play comfortably.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 5.7m -2.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1