GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 40.0m
16
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.4

A defensive masterclass drove an elite overall rating, highlighted by suffocating perimeter navigation and timely weak-side rotations. His relentless hustle in fighting through screens completely neutralized the opponent's primary wing scorer.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +9.2
Defense +14.7
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 40.0m -19.6
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 38.4m
18
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.5

Utter dominance in the drop coverage scheme completely erased the opponent's interior attack and fueled a massive positive impact. He capitalized on high-percentage lob opportunities while single-handedly altering the geometry of the floor defensively.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +12.0
Raw total +36.3
Avg player in 38.4m -18.8
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ayo Dosunmu 38.4m
17
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite generating solid secondary creation, poor finishing on drives and ill-timed defensive gambles resulted in a negative overall showing. Getting caught out of position on backdoor cuts repeatedly surrendered easy momentum-shifting baskets.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 38.4m -18.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 36.7m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.0

A heavy diet of forced, contested mid-range jumpers tanked his offensive efficiency and dragged his net score into the negative. While he battled adequately on the defensive glass, his ball-stopping tendencies consistently disrupted the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 36.7m -17.9
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.4

A disastrous shooting performance from beyond the arc heavily penalized his offensive value and tanked his overall rating. Even though he generated extra possessions through scrappy loose-ball recoveries, his inability to punish defensive rotations doomed the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 35.1m -17.2
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
Bones Hyland 22.2m
17
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Instant-offense shot creation off the bench provided a crucial scoring punch that lifted his impact into the green. His ability to break down defenders in isolation during the second quarter stabilized the offense when the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 22.2m -10.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-IQ defensive rotations and connective passing salvaged a positive rating despite a brutal shooting night. His methodical pacing and ability to disrupt passing lanes perfectly executed the defensive game plan during his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 18.0m -8.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

A lack of offensive assertiveness and poor spacing awareness dragged down his brief rotation minutes. Failing to capitalize on transition opportunities highlighted a disjointed performance that stalled the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -50.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 11.1m -5.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 36.2m
25
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.2

High-volume inefficiency and minor defensive lapses ultimately dragged his net score into the red despite strong raw production. A pattern of forcing contested drives into traffic resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 36.2m -17.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 34.0m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

Despite generating significant value through high-motor defensive rotations, his offensive regression severely dragged down his overall impact. Consistent misfires from the perimeter stalled half-court momentum and negated the extra possessions he created.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 34.0m -16.8
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 31.9m
26
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Elite shot-making on contested perimeter looks drove a highly positive offensive rating. His ability to consistently bail out stagnant possessions late in the shot clock paired beautifully with disciplined closeouts on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 31.9m -15.7
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jrue Holiday 31.9m
12
pts
2
reb
12
ast
Impact
-5.0

Severe shooting struggles completely overshadowed his playmaking contributions and dragged down his overall rating. Clanking numerous open perimeter looks allowed the defense to sag into the paint, stalling the half-court offense and neutralizing his reliable point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.4%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 31.9m -15.5
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Donovan Clingan 31.1m
21
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.4

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive positive swing, far exceeding his usual offensive output. He overwhelmed his frontcourt matchups with relentless interior finishing and rim protection, dictating the physical terms of the game on both ends.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +35.6
Avg player in 31.1m -15.2
Impact +20.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Exceptional defensive pressure at the point of attack kept his value from completely cratering despite ongoing offensive struggles. However, erratic decision-making and forced shots in the mid-range prevented him from establishing any positive rhythm on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +7.3
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 24.4m -11.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Elite rim deterrence was not enough to overcome a surprisingly ineffective finishing night around the basket. Fumbling interior dump-offs and missing typical gimme-baskets derailed several promising offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 16.9m -8.3
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A near-neutral outing defined by his typical disruptive defensive instincts but severely limited offensive utility. His inability to punish defensive closeouts from the corners allowed opponents to freely double-team the primary Portland ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 16.3m -7.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kris Murray 15.8m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his impact score during his rotation minutes. While he maintained solid defensive positioning, his reluctance to attack closeouts created a 4-on-5 dynamic that bogged down the second unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 15.8m -7.7
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Managed a slightly positive impact in an extremely brief garbage-time cameo. A quick connective pass in transition highlighted his short stint before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +55.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0