GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Dylan Harper 28.0m
24
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.8

Slicing through the lane at will generated a massive offensive rating, but poor ball security prevented a truly monstrous total score. The rookie repeatedly broke down the defense off the bounce, only to occasionally throw the ball away in traffic. His relentless rim pressure was the engine of the offense, even if it came with a hefty turnover tax.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.9%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +24.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 28.0m -16.8
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

A high volume of bricked perimeter looks severely penalized what was otherwise a solid rebounding effort. His inability to convert open catch-and-shoot opportunities derailed the offense's flow during key second-half stretches. Despite commendable hustle on long rebounds, the sheer number of wasted possessions plunged his net score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 26.9m -16.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.8

Defensive intimidation remains his ultimate trump card, as his massive rim-protection metrics anchored a double-digit positive impact. A dip in scoring volume was offset by his gravitational pull on both ends, though forced passes out of double teams likely caused the penalty gap. He completely erased the opponent's interior attack during a dominant third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 26.1m -15.5
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
S De'Aaron Fox 26.1m
14
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.8

Pacing issues and forced mid-range jumpers resulted in a surprisingly detrimental performance from the lead guard. He struggled to navigate drop coverage, leading to stalled possessions and a heavy penalty for poor shot quality. Despite decent defensive metrics, his inability to generate clean looks in the half-court dragged the entire unit down.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 26.1m -15.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Harrison Barnes 22.6m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

An unexpected scoring punch was completely neutralized by hidden negative plays, likely a mix of bad fouls and defensive miscommunications. He found success attacking closeouts, yet gave those points right back by biting on pump fakes. The veteran's offensive resurgence was ultimately overshadowed by his inability to string together stops.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +45.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 22.6m -13.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
24
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.9

Bully-ball drives and elite finishing at the rim fueled a massive surge in his overall effectiveness. He relentlessly punished smaller defenders in the post, though a lack of defensive playmaking kept his score from entering the stratosphere. This performance was defined by pure physical dominance on the offensive end, overwhelming the opponent's wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +25.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 25.3m -15.1
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 21.5m
9
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.9

Elite positioning on the offensive glass and timely put-backs drove a highly efficient shift for the big man. He consistently won the battle for deep post position, creating extra possessions that boosted his overall value. A few defensive missteps in space were minor blemishes on an otherwise stellar interior performance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 21.5m -12.9
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

A disastrous offensive flow rating tanked his impact, pointing to severe spacing issues and poorly timed cuts. While he showed flashes of competence as a weak-side helper, his inability to process offensive reads resulted in stalled possessions. He was repeatedly ignored by the defense, allowing opponents to freely double-team the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 21.0m -12.6
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

Tenacious point-of-attack defense and timely perimeter shot-making salvaged a positive rating in limited minutes. He completely disrupted the opposing backup point guard's rhythm, generating crucial stops during a second-quarter run. The math suggests some hidden turnover issues, but his defensive intensity ultimately tipped the scales in his favor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 17.7m -10.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

A sudden scoring outburst couldn't mask the underlying defensive liabilities that dragged his net score into the red. He was consistently beaten off the dribble in isolation, forcing the defense into scramble mode and giving up easy layups. The perimeter shooting was a welcome surprise, but he gave it all back by being a turnstile on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 16.5m -9.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A brief, unimpactful stint was marred by slow defensive rotations that yielded easy looks at the rim. He managed to convert his few touches inside, but his lack of mobility in pick-and-roll coverage was immediately exploited. The negative defensive score perfectly captures his struggles to contain quicker ball handlers in space.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -112.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 4.1m -2.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Completely invisible during his short stint, offering zero resistance defensively and failing to register a single positive play. He looked out of sync with the offensive sets, resulting in a pair of empty trips that quickly earned him a seat on the bench. A total lack of hustle or physical engagement defined this highly forgettable appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -112.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 4.1m -2.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 34.5m
21
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite shot-making masked a sloppy floor game that severely dragged down his overall impact. A massive mathematical gap between his box score and net rating suggests a barrage of live-ball turnovers or offensive fouls wiped out much of his perimeter value. His aggressive downhill attacks yielded great efficiency but came at a steep cost in possession control.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 105.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 34.5m -20.7
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 29.5m
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite solid defensive rotations and active hands in the passing lanes, his overall rating sank into the red. The culprit was a heavy volume of wasted possessions, likely driven by uncharacteristic passing errors out of the post. His inability to punish single coverage on the block resulted in empty trips that erased his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 29.5m -17.6
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 27.8m
25
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.2

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll drove a massive baseline box score, but careless ball security slashed his final rating. The scoring surge was heavily taxed by risky cross-court passes that resulted in costly transition opportunities for the opponent. Still, his ability to consistently break down the primary point-of-attack defender kept his team afloat during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 27.8m -16.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Nesmith 24.8m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

A brutal regression to the mean saw his overall value crater due to forced, contested looks early in the shot clock. The steep negative defensive impact indicates he was repeatedly targeted on switches, compounding the damage of his empty offensive possessions. He struggled to find any rhythm against physical wing defense, leading to a highly detrimental floor presence.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.2
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 24.8m -14.8
Impact -15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quenton Jackson 15.5m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Lack of off-ball activity and zero hustle contributions left him vulnerable to negative variance. A cluster of defensive breakdowns and poorly timed fouls in transition dragged his net score below zero. He failed to leverage his recent hot streak, settling for stagnant perimeter positioning rather than attacking closeouts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 15.5m -9.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 21.2m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Strong off-ball movement generated high-quality looks, but hidden mistakes dragged his final score to neutral. A series of missed rotations and bad closeouts on the perimeter bled points defensively. He brought excellent energy to the offensive glass, yet those extra possessions were largely undone by defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 21.2m -12.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 19.5m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Excellent verticality and disciplined rim contests drove a highly impactful defensive shift. He capitalized on his minutes by executing dribble hand-offs flawlessly, though a few careless fouls slightly dented his final tally. His ability to seal off the defensive glass against bigger matchups was the defining element of his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 19.5m -11.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Obi Toppin 19.0m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

Settling for low-percentage outside looks completely tanked his offensive efficiency and overall impact. A stark refusal to attack the rim negated his athletic advantages, resulting in empty possessions that fueled opponent momentum. While his weak-side rim protection showed flashes, it wasn't nearly enough to offset the damage of his perimeter shot selection.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 19.0m -11.3
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Jay Huff 18.3m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Active screening and solid positioning couldn't overcome a significant drop in finishing around the basket. The negative final tally points to a string of costly moving screens or interior turnovers when operating in the high post. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage effectively, allowing guards to turn the corner too easily.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 18.3m -11.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.4

Relentless full-court pressure and elite hustle metrics defined this gritty, low-usage shift. His scoring completely vanished compared to recent outings, but he salvaged a positive rating by generating deflections and diving for loose balls. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off, though his relentless motor partially neutralized the spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 16.6m -10.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 13.3m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Pure spot-up shooting kept his head above water, but a complete absence of rebounding or secondary playmaking limited his ceiling. He operated strictly as a floor spacer, punishing defensive collapses without contributing to the dirty work. The marginal positive score reflects a highly specialized role that offered zero margin for error defensively.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +34.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 13.3m -8.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0