GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Bez Mbeng 44.8m
13
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.1

Despite highly efficient shot selection that spiked his scoring average, defensive vulnerabilities (-0.5) over a grueling marathon workload dragged his net rating down. The sheer volume of minutes magnified minor defensive lapses and offset his otherwise tidy offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.8m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 44.8m -23.8
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Elijah Harkless 35.6m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

Off-the-charts hustle (+7.1) and suffocating defense (+10.9) formed the backbone of a stellar two-way performance. Even with a shaky three-point stroke, his relentless motor on loose balls and passing lanes generated massive value.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +7.1
Defense +10.9
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 35.6m -18.9
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cody Williams 34.9m
15
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.5

Impact absolutely plummeted due to a disastrous shooting night where he clanked ten total shots and completely blanked from deep. Compounding the offensive inefficiency were costly defensive breakdowns (-1.9) that bled points during his extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 34.9m -18.4
Impact -17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 33.4m
25
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

Elite defensive disruption (+10.9) completely salvaged a wildly inefficient chucking performance from beyond the arc. While missing thirteen total shots normally tanks a player's value, his relentless perimeter defense and ability to force stops drove a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +10.9
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 33.4m -17.8
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 18.3m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

An abysmal perimeter shooting display snapped his streak of highly efficient games and dragged his impact into the negative. Solid defensive positioning (+2.8) only partially mitigated the damage of his eleven wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 18.3m -9.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Active defensive hands (+4.1) and solid hustle metrics kept his overall impact in the green despite missing eight field goals. Timely perimeter shot-making helped offset the inefficiency of his interior drives.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 37.2m -19.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 25.3m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Gritty hustle plays (+4.0) and sound defensive rotations provided a steadying presence that resulted in a positive net rating. He avoided forcing bad looks, taking what the defense gave him to ensure efficient use of his touches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 25.3m -13.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.7

Maximized a brief rotation spot by converting high-percentage interior looks to maintain his streak of elite shooting efficiency. Generating clean offensive possessions without wasting touches fueled a massive positive impact rate for his limited floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 10.6m -5.6
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.0m
22
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Heavy offensive usage kept his baseline metrics high, but bricking ten field goal attempts neutralized his overall effectiveness. His defensive activity (+4.0) barely kept his net impact near neutral during a highly taxing workload.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 39.0m -20.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quentin Grimes 35.6m
25
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.6

Despite an efficient scoring surge that spiked his recent averages, hidden costs like defensive lapses (-1.0) and poor transition containment dragged his net rating deep into the red. The high offensive volume masked underlying bleed on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.0
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 35.6m -18.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Adem Bona 26.6m
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.7

Dominated the interior with highly efficient finishing that fueled a massive scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. An imposing defensive presence (+6.6) combined with relentless rim-running to yield a stellar two-way impact score.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 26.6m -14.1
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Justin Edwards 25.3m
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Tremendous hustle (+5.0) and solid defensive rotations couldn't salvage an erratic shooting performance that dragged down his overall value. Clanking seven shots, primarily from the perimeter, negated the extra possessions he generated through sheer effort.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 25.3m -13.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that snapped his streak of highly efficient shooting nights. His negative overall impact stems entirely from a lack of offensive production during his limited minutes, though he did manage to provide a slight defensive lift (+1.9).

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 3.7m -2.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.7

Perimeter shot-making provided a scoring punch, but missing six field goals inside the arc limited his offensive ceiling. A lack of disruptive defensive plays or loose-ball recoveries kept his overall net impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 27.4m -14.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Phenomenal shot selection and aggressive hustle (+3.8) defined a highly efficient scoring outburst that nearly doubled his recent average. By converting high-value looks and competing on the margins, he generated one of the team's best overall impact scores.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 23.5m -12.6
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Anchored the paint with a dominant defensive rating (+8.3) that completely overshadowed his quiet offensive output. Elite rim deterrence and disciplined positioning drove a strong positive impact despite taking only five shots.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +8.3
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 20.6m -10.9
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

Maximized a short stint off the bench by taking high-percentage looks and contributing active hustle plays (+2.4). This efficient shot selection drove a strong positive impact rate relative to his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 17.9m -9.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Defensive struggles (-0.9) and minimal hustle contributions severely undercut an otherwise adequate shooting night. Failing to generate extra possessions or stops during his brief rotation turn resulted in a notably negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 12.7m -6.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

A completely empty offensive shift combined with poor defensive execution (-1.2) cratered his rating in under eight minutes. Offering zero hustle stats or scoring punch made him a significant liability during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 7.8m -4.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1