GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
7
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.8

Incredible rebounding and defensive activity were completely offset by a disastrous string of unforced passing errors. Failing to secure the ball against aggressive traps turned what should have been a dominant performance into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 48.0m -23.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Elijah Harkless 34.5m
23
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+14.6

Dictated the entire pace of the game through elite playmaking and relentless loose-ball recoveries. Consistently breaking down the primary defender to find shooters in the weak-side corners drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 69.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +46.3
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +9.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 34.5m -16.7
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 34.1m
33
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.3

Total offensive takeover fueled by an unrelenting barrage of pull-up jumpers against drop coverage. Pairing this scoring explosion with suffocating perimeter defense completely locked down his primary matchup on the other end.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 7/19 (36.8%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 36.6%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.9
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 34.1m -16.6
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Cody Williams 27.1m
23
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.2

Slicing through the defense with decisive off-ball cuts generated a highly efficient scoring output. The ability to finish through contact at the rim consistently punished the opponent's undersized frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 27.1m -13.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 25.0m
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Thrived as a release valve in the pick-and-pop, forcing the opposing bigs to step out of the paint. Disciplined verticality at the rim altered several key shots during a crucial third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 25.0m -12.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Bez Mbeng 35.4m
5
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.6

Suffocating point-of-attack defense was entirely ruined by erratic decision-making with the ball in his hands. A devastating sequence of live-ball turnovers in the fourth quarter directly fueled the opponent's transition attack.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +46.6
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 35.4m -17.3
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
Blake Hinson 20.4m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Lethal spot-up shooting stretched the floor beautifully, but heavy feet on the defensive end bled points. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in isolation during the second half, nearly erasing his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +55.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.1
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 20.4m -9.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Absolutely bullied his way around the paint, generating extra possessions through sheer physical dominance. Flawless execution as a roll man created a highly efficient offensive stint that overwhelmed the backup bigs.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +58.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 15.5m -7.5
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ousmane Dieng 24.6m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite shot selection and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly efficient two-way performance. Consistently punishing closeouts with decisive drives made him a nightmare matchup for slower forwards on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -54.1
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 24.6m -11.9
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 23.1m
15
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.8

Scoring volume heavily masked a disastrous defensive stint where he was repeatedly targeted on switches. Live-ball turnovers in transition completely erased the value of his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 23.1m -11.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Kuzma 19.3m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Solid defensive rotations and weak-side help buoyed his underlying metrics, but careless ball security dragged his overall impact into the red. Forcing contested mid-range looks against switching schemes negated the value of his defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -48.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 19.3m -9.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Myles Turner 18.4m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.0

Completely neutralized by physical interior defense, resulting in a severe negative impact across the board. A brutal stretch of moving screens and offensive fouls in the third quarter entirely derailed his rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 18.4m -8.8
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S AJ Green 11.8m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Blanking on perimeter attempts severely damaged his offensive gravity and overall value. Because opponents essentially ignored him in the half-court, the paint became clogged, stalling the team's offensive flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 11.8m -5.8
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 23.6m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Overcame a highly inefficient shooting night by dominating the glass and generating crucial second-chance opportunities. Relentless energy on defensive rotations during the fourth quarter salvaged his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 23.6m -11.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 22.7m
14
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.0

Severe tunnel vision and forced isolation attempts against set defenses cratered his offensive value. Even though he showed surprising engagement fighting over screens defensively, the empty offensive possessions heavily outweighed the stops.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 22.7m -11.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
Jericho Sims 17.6m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

A string of illegal screens and poorly timed fouls completely undermined his otherwise solid positional defense. Struggling to anchor the drop coverage against the pick-and-roll allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 17.6m -8.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Bricking open spot-up looks allowed the defense to heavily stunt toward the primary ball-handlers. While he showed flashes of active hands in the passing lanes, an inability to punish defensive rotations made him a severe liability.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 17.1m -8.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Perimeter defensive lapses and poor closeout angles allowed opponents to generate easy looks, tanking his net impact. Despite hitting a couple of timely corner threes, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards proved costly.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 16.9m -8.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 13.0m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Hesitancy to shoot when left open completely derailed the offensive spacing during the second quarter. Consistently a step slow on defensive closeouts, he yielded high-value corner attempts to the opposition.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -47.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 13.0m -6.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Failed to make any tangible impact in his limited run, floating on the perimeter without cutting with purpose. A pair of costly transition fouls quickly ended his stint and dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 8.9m -4.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Provided a brief spark of chaotic energy that slightly tipped the scales in a positive direction. A crucial momentum-shifting block at the rim defined his short but effective stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 7.7m -3.7
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Rushed perimeter attempts early in the shot clock negatively impacted the team's offensive efficiency. Struggling to contain dribble penetration frequently required help defenders to clean up his initial point-of-attack mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 7.7m -3.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Played fundamentally sound basketball, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns without forcing his own offense. Textbook navigation of off-ball screens kept the opposing guards from finding any rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 7.6m -3.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2