GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Jalen Green 35.6m
24
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Powered a highly efficient offensive showing by attacking downhill and collapsing the defense, which opened up the perimeter for his teammates. His exceptional hustle rating highlights a series of crucial loose-ball recoveries that sustained drives during a tight fourth quarter. The combination of rim pressure and extra-effort plays drove a stellar net positive.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 35.6m -16.6
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Booker 35.2m
14
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.6

Suffered through a brutal shooting slump, forcing contested jumpers against set defenses instead of moving the ball. Despite showing genuine effort on the defensive end and chasing down loose balls, his offensive inefficiency stalled out multiple crucial possessions. The sheer volume of empty trips outweighed his positive contributions on the margins.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 35.2m -16.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
18
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.4

Stretched the defense to its breaking point with aggressive perimeter shooting, punishing defenders who went under screens. Even with a few defensive lapses, his ability to warp the floor spacing created driving lanes that the offense desperately needed. This sudden scoring eruption completely altered the opponent's defensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 33.0m -15.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Oso Ighodaro 31.6m
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

Executed his role as a rim-runner flawlessly, punishing defensive miscommunications with perfectly timed cuts to the basket. His defensive metrics were buoyed by excellent drop-coverage positioning, consistently forcing guards into low-percentage floaters. A highly efficient, mistake-free stint anchored the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 31.6m -14.7
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jordan Goodwin 27.1m
11
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.1

Provided a massive spark by blowing up dribble hand-offs and fighting through screens with relentless physicality. His defensive pressure directly translated into live-ball turnovers, allowing the team to get easy buckets in transition. Exceeding his usual scoring output was just a bonus on top of his elite point-of-attack disruption.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 27.1m -12.7
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 23.4m
12
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.1

Shut down the opposing wings with suffocating isolation defense, completely erasing his primary matchup from the game. He capitalized on the other end by finding soft spots in the zone, converting highly efficient looks around the basket. His two-way versatility was the linchpin of a dominant mid-game stretch.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 23.4m -10.8
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Played a largely forgettable stint marked by hesitant decision-making when the ball swung his way. He provided decent energy on closeouts, but his failure to decisively attack rotating defenses allowed opponents to reset. Ultimately, he was a passenger who neither elevated nor actively harmed the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 19.2m -8.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to anchor the paint effectively, frequently biting on pump fakes and compromising the team's rebounding positioning. While he managed a few weak-side contests to boost his defensive rating, his overall lack of discipline gave away cheap fouls. The inability to secure the defensive glass kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 16.4m -7.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Completely derailed offensive possessions by bricking wide-open spot-up looks, which allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the primary ball handlers. Even though he competed hard on defensive rotations, his absolute zero gravity on offense created a 4-on-5 nightmare. His inability to punish the defense directly fueled the negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -61.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 9.8m -4.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Pounded the air out of the ball during half-court sets, failing to initiate the offense before the shot clock dwindled. This lack of pace allowed the defense to rest and set up, neutralizing any transition advantages. A couple of late-clock bail-out makes couldn't hide the structural damage done to the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 8.7m -4.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 33.1m
26
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.3

Commanded the floor on both ends, utilizing relentless point-of-attack pressure to completely disrupt the opposing backcourt's rhythm. His defensive metrics reflect a string of blown-up pick-and-rolls that he instantly converted into transition opportunities. This two-way clinic cemented his status as the primary engine for the team's success tonight.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +9.8
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 33.1m -15.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ousmane Dieng 32.9m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Racked up solid counting stats and deflections, but his net impact was destroyed by poor decision-making in traffic. He forced several ill-advised passes into tight windows that fueled opponent fast breaks. Despite active hands on defense, those offensive empty calories resulted in a severe negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 32.9m -15.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 23.8m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

An offensive surge masked significant give-backs in transition defense and sloppy ball security. While he capitalized on mismatches in the mid-post to exceed his recent scoring averages, his overall impact was muted by late defensive rotations. The raw production was there, but the hidden costs kept his net rating grounded.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 23.8m -11.1
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Taurean Prince 21.8m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Impact cratered due to empty possessions and likely live-ball turnovers that aren't captured in the base defensive metrics. His inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to sag, bogging down the half-court offense. The steep drop in scoring efficiency from his recent baseline amplified the negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 21.8m -10.1
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 20.5m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Dominated the margins without needing offensive touches, driven by an elite hustle rating that reflects constant rim deterrence and contested shots. He completely shut off the paint during his second-quarter stint, forcing opponents into late-clock bailouts. Even with minimal scoring volume, his sheer physical presence anchored the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +7.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 20.5m -9.5
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Pete Nance 27.0m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Disappeared from the offensive flow, passing up open looks and allowing the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. This passivity shrank the floor for his teammates, leading to a cascade of forced shots late in the clock. Even with adequate positional defense, his offensive hesitation tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 5.2%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 27.0m -12.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jericho Sims 24.7m
5
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

Generated massive value purely through vertical spacing and relentless positioning on the glass. By securing crucial extra possessions via offensive tip-outs, he broke the opponent's defensive spirit during a pivotal third-quarter run. He proved that a player can completely control a game's momentum without ever calling his own number.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 24.7m -11.5
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock, effectively acting as turnovers that sparked opponent transition pushes. While he managed to salvage his line with a few late triples, the damage to the team's offensive rhythm was already done. His shot profile directly undermined the broader offensive strategy.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 23.1m -10.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Green 17.4m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Found himself repeatedly targeted in isolation, bleeding points on the defensive end whenever he was switched onto quicker wings. Although he knocked down a couple of perimeter looks, his inability to stay in front of his man negated any offensive contributions. The overall negative impact stems directly from being a defensive liability in space.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 17.4m -8.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Thomas 15.6m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Stagnated the offensive flow with pre-determined drives into heavy traffic, resulting in blocked shots and killed possessions. His shot selection bailed out the defense, preventing the team from establishing any rhythm while he was on the floor. A few decent defensive rotations couldn't salvage a highly detrimental offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 15.6m -7.3
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3