GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Ziaire Williams 25.3m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.3

Slashing to the rim with absolute conviction allowed him to generate high-value looks and dominate his minutes. He consistently beat closeouts and made the defense pay for late rotations during a pivotal third-quarter surge. This aggressive, downhill mentality translated directly into a massive positive swing for the unit.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 25.3m -11.1
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Drake Powell 24.6m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.5

A brutal string of defensive miscommunications and blown coverages allowed his primary assignments to feast on the perimeter. He was frequently caught ball-watching, which surrendered backbreaking corner threes that tanked his overall score. The lack of offensive assertiveness only magnified his struggles on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 24.6m -10.9
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Danny Wolf 24.4m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Settling for heavily contested jumpers derailed his offensive rhythm and severely dragged down his overall rating. He repeatedly bailed out the defense by launching early-clock perimeter shots rather than working the ball inside. Those empty possessions completely overshadowed a handful of decent weak-side contests.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 24.4m -10.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 24.0m
11
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.0

Driving into crowded paint areas resulted in a slew of blocked shots and wild misses that devastated his efficiency metrics. He struggled mightily to read the secondary line of defense, stubbornly forcing the issue instead of kicking the ball out. Those squandered possessions easily wiped away the value of his perimeter ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 24.0m -10.6
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Nic Claxton 21.7m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Controlling the restricted area with disciplined contests and timely box-outs provided a steadying presence for the frontcourt. He avoided cheap fouls while still altering a significant number of attempts at the rim. This reliable interior anchoring ensured his minutes were a net positive despite a low-usage offensive role.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 21.7m -9.6
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ben Saraf 27.4m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

Exceptional hustle and relentless loose-ball recoveries could not mask the damage done by his abysmal shot selection. He consistently short-circuited offensive sets by taking off-balance midrange pull-ups early in the clock. The sheer volume of wasted scoring opportunities resulted in a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense -6.9
Hustle +6.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 27.4m -12.0
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Josh Minott 25.8m
22
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.3

Catching absolute fire from beyond the arc punished the defense for every late rotation and completely warped the geometry of the floor. He paired this lethal floor-spacing with high-motor closeouts, making him a dominant two-way force throughout his shift. A blistering sequence of back-to-back corner triples effectively broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 25.8m -11.5
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.0

Suffocating on-ball defense and brilliant screen navigation completely erased his primary assignment, driving a positive impact score despite a frigid shooting night. He made his mark by blowing up handoffs and generating crucial deflections during a tight fourth-quarter stretch. His willingness to do the dirty work ensured his offensive struggles didn't hurt the team.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 24.4m -10.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 23.9m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Clanking a high volume of wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities severely limited his ability to impact the game positively. The opponent actively chose to leave him unguarded, and his inability to punish that strategy bogged down the entire half-court offense. A few timely weak-side rotations weren't enough to compensate for the offensive spacing issues he created.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 23.9m -10.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.1

Picking his spots with surgical precision allowed him to maximize his offensive value without dominating the ball. He capitalized on broken plays and transition leak-outs, ensuring that nearly every one of his touches resulted in a high-quality look. This low-mistake, opportunistic approach provided a steadying lift for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 18.6m -8.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 40.6m
17
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.5

Forcing the issue against set defenses led to a slew of clanked isolation jumpers that dragged his overall rating into negative territory. While he generated decent hustle metrics through loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved too costly. His inability to find a rhythm from deep consistently bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 40.6m -17.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 35.9m
9
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Offensive passivity and costly live-ball turnovers dragged his overall impact firmly into the red. Despite maintaining solid defensive positioning on the perimeter, his inability to generate rim pressure stalled the half-court offense. He passed up several open looks that disrupted the team's spacing rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 35.9m -15.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 35.1m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

A heavy volume of bricked perimeter looks severely penalized his offensive rating, completely erasing the value of his elite point-of-attack defense. His insistence on forcing contested above-the-break threes short-circuited multiple possessions. The defensive metrics remained strong, but the errant shot selection ultimately sank his overall value.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 35.1m -15.3
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
26
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.5

Relentless interior physicality dictated the terms of this matchup, drawing multiple shooting fouls that generated highly efficient trips to the line. Even when his jump shot wasn't falling, his sheer gravity in the post collapsed the defense and created second-chance opportunities. This bullying approach inside offset any minor efficiency dips from the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 28.6m -12.5
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Landry Shamet 21.6m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Off-ball defensive rotations and timely closeouts salvaged a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. He spent the evening chasing shooters off the line, providing hidden value that kept his net score barely above water. If not for those disciplined defensive shifts, his cold shooting would have been disastrous.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 21.6m -9.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite rim protection and disciplined verticality anchored the paint, though his complete lack of offensive involvement capped his overall impact. He effectively neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll game by dropping deep and contesting without fouling. However, failing to make himself available as a lob threat allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.9
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 23.8m -10.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

High-energy transition play and exceptional ball security maximized his limited minutes on the floor. He consistently made the extra pass and avoided the careless turnovers that often plague his aggressive style. A crucial second-quarter stretch of deflections and fast-break initiation perfectly encapsulated his highly efficient outing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +7.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 21.8m -9.6
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

Capitalizing on brief windows of space, his decisive perimeter shooting provided a much-needed spacing boost during the middle quarters. He didn't force any action, instead letting the game come to him and executing within the flow of the offense. Solid rotational defense further cemented a quietly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 19.5m -8.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Errant floaters and rushed decisions in the paint severely punished his brief time on the hardwood. Although he provided his trademark peskiness guarding the ball handler, it wasn't nearly enough to overcome the empty offensive trips. A particularly rough stretch of forced shots early in the shot clock killed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 13.0m -5.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

A purely ceremonial appearance resulted in a completely neutral statistical footprint. He was subbed in solely to execute a situational defensive assignment before the buzzer sounded. There was simply no time to register any meaningful basketball actions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0m -0.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0