GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 32.1m
28
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+25.8

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, fueled by suffocating perimeter defense that ignited a lethal transition attack. He completely locked down his primary assignment while simultaneously carving up the paint with surgical drives and floaters. This aggressive downhill mentality forced the defense into constant rotation, dictating the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +27.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +11.4
Raw total +43.5
Avg player in 32.1m -17.7
Impact +25.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 28.6m
23
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.6

Masterful operation in the mid-range punished defensive drop coverages, keeping the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. He smartly abandoned a cold three-point stroke to hunt high-percentage floaters and pull-ups. Timely defensive rotations masked his usual physical limitations, resulting in a solid two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +49.1
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 28.6m -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 2
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Relentless hustle and elite screen navigation drove his positive impact, even on a night where his scoring volume dipped. He generated massive value by diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble handoffs before they could materialize. This gritty, unglamorous work perfectly complemented the primary scorers and kept the defensive intensity high.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +8.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 27.5m -15.1
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 25.8m
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

Struggled to finish through contact, missing several high-percentage looks around the basket that usually anchor his efficiency. While his pick-and-roll defense remained sharp and disruptive, the lack of offensive punch allowed the defense to cheat off him. Failing to capitalize on deep seals ultimately neutralized his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +56.3
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 25.8m -14.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Mouhamed Gueye 25.7m
16
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.0

Flawless shot selection and unexpected perimeter gravity completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. By stepping out and punishing drop coverage from deep, he opened up massive driving lanes for the guards. He anchored this offensive explosion with elite rim deterrence, contesting everything at the summit without fouling.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.5
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 25.7m -14.1
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
17
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Capitalized brilliantly on defensive inattention, punishing late closeouts with decisive catch-and-shoot daggers. He didn't force the issue, instead letting the offense come to him and finishing plays with remarkable efficiency. A relatively quiet defensive performance kept his overall impact grounded, but his floor-spacing was essential.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 23.4m -13.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.6

Forced isolation drives into heavy traffic completely derailed offensive possessions and fueled opponent fast breaks. His shot selection was highly questionable, repeatedly settling for contested jumpers early in the shot clock instead of moving the ball. This offensive tunnel vision completely overshadowed a few decent weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -7.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total -4.3
Avg player in 22.3m -12.3
Impact -16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 18.6m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Anchored the interior with phenomenal verticality, altering numerous shots at the rim to stifle the opponent's driving game. His offensive touch was slightly off, but he made up for it by creating second-chance opportunities through sheer physicality on the glass. Setting bruising screens freed up the guards, showcasing his value beyond the stat sheet.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +8.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 18.6m -10.2
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.3

Getting consistently targeted on defensive switches erased the value of his efficient offensive cutting. Opposing ball-handlers sought him out in pick-and-roll actions, easily breaking down his containment to compromise the paint. While he found soft spots in the zone offensively, the defensive bleeding was too severe to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 18.2m -10.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gabe Vincent 13.3m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.5

Complete lack of offensive aggression and zero hustle plays made him a ghost during his time on the floor. He failed to pressure the rim or create separation, allowing defenders to rest when guarding him. This passive approach, combined with getting lost on a few off-ball screens, severely damaged the lineup's effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -37.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 13.3m -7.3
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

A disastrously brief stint was defined by rushed, contested perimeter shots that led to long rebounds and easy transition points for the opposition. He failed to establish any rhythm, forcing the action instead of letting the play develop. The coaching staff quickly pulled the plug after his poor shot selection compromised the transition defense.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense -6.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total -4.5
Avg player in 4.4m -2.4
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Draymond Green 26.1m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Settling for too many perimeter looks dragged down his overall efficiency, as the defense gladly conceded those outside attempts. While he provided his usual connective passing and structural defensive organization, the lack of rim pressure limited the ceiling of his impact. His willingness to shoot from deep bailed out opposing defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 26.1m -14.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.3

An alarming lack of offensive rhythm derailed his impact, as he repeatedly clanked open perimeter looks that usually punish drop coverage. Even though he maintained solid rotational defensive principles, the inability to capitalize on defensive breakdowns stalled multiple scoring runs. His hesitation to attack the paint after early misses allowed the defense to completely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 24.4m -13.4
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Gui Santos 23.7m
2
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.4

A stark regression from his recent scoring tear left a massive void in the offensive flow. Despite generating solid defensive pressure and loose-ball recoveries, his complete inability to find the basket tanked his overall value. He looked hesitant attacking closeouts, settling into the background of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -60.9
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -6.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 23.7m -13.0
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

Aggressive downhill penetration broke him out of a recent shooting slump and constantly compromised the point of attack. He paired this offensive resurgence with disruptive perimeter defense, blowing up multiple handoff actions to generate transition opportunities. The sheer volume of his rim attacks offset a streaky night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg -35.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 21.7m -11.9
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Quinten Post 14.4m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Spacing the floor effectively as a stretch big forced opposing centers out of the paint, opening up crucial driving lanes. His defensive positioning was sound enough to survive switches, though a lack of elite rim deterrence kept his overall impact modest. Hitting key pick-and-pop jumpers stabilized the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 14.4m -7.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Richard 31.0m
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Defensive lapses and poor spacing negated a surprisingly efficient scoring night inside the arc. He frequently found himself caught in no-man's land during off-ball rotations, leading to easy backdoor cuts for his assignment. Despite showing great energy on loose balls, those structural mistakes in the half-court proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 31.0m -17.1
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Elite shot selection drove a ruthlessly efficient offensive showing, punishing defensive rotations with timely cuts and decisive finishes. He refused to force bad looks, perfectly playing off the gravity of primary creators to find soft spots in the zone. This clinical finishing, paired with steady positional defense, anchored a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 28.7m -15.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Pat Spencer 26.2m
18
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless rim pressure and decisive cutting shredded the defensive interior, doubling his usual offensive production. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, collapsing the shell and creating high-quality looks. Solid point-of-attack defense further amplified a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 26.2m -14.4
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
LJ Cryer 19.4m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

A one-dimensional shot profile heavily reliant on contested triples severely limited his offensive ceiling. While he hit enough from deep to keep the defense honest, his inability to generate paint touches or facilitate for others stalled the offensive flow. Getting targeted on defensive switches ultimately dragged his net impact deeply into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 19.4m -10.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Complete offensive invisibility hindered the second unit, as he failed to establish deep post position or offer a vertical threat. He did manage to wall off the paint effectively on the other end, deterring a handful of drives. However, the inability to punish mismatches or convert easy dump-offs made him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 15.1m -8.4
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.4

Wreaked absolute havoc in limited minutes by blowing up passing lanes and executing flawless weak-side rotations. His defensive instincts completely derailed the opponent's secondary actions, generating crucial stops during a pivotal stretch. He didn't need offensive volume to leave a massive imprint on the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 9.3m -5.1
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0