GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 35.1m
22
pts
14
reb
14
ast
Impact
+10.5

Masterful high-post orchestration systematically disassembled the opposing defense, creating high-value layups and corner threes. Surprisingly, his impact was heavily bolstered by elite positional defense (+9.6 Def), using quick hands to disrupt entry passes and blow up actions early. Controlling the geometry of the floor on both ends resulted in a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.6
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 35.1m -19.9
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jamal Murray 30.8m
22
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.8

Operating heavily out of the pick-and-roll, he consistently forced drop defenders to commit before making the right read. His willingness to crash down and secure long rebounds (+4.3 Hustle) added unexpected value to his floor time. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his steady game management kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 30.8m -17.3
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Christian Braun 29.0m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Transition rim-running generated easy offense, but half-court spacing issues limited his overall ceiling. He provided excellent point-of-attack resistance (+2.8 Def), navigating screens to bother ball-handlers. Despite the solid two-way effort, his minutes coincided with opponent runs that flattened his net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.6%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 29.0m -16.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Gordon 28.4m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.7

A distinct lack of physical engagement allowed opponents to comfortably secure loose balls and second-chance opportunities. While he found soft spots in the dunker spot for easy finishes, his lethargic weak-side defensive rotations bled points at the rim. The raw efficiency was entirely undermined by a failure to do the dirty work.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +12.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 28.4m -16.1
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cameron Johnson 27.7m
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Lethal off-ball movement completely fractured the opponent's defensive shell, leading to a barrage of uncontested catch-and-shoot daggers. He paired this offensive clinic with disciplined closeouts (+5.6 Def) that ran shooters off the line. Capitalizing on every defensive rotation mistake defined this highly efficient two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 27.7m -15.6
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 25.9m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Wreaked havoc in the transition game, turning live-ball turnovers into immediate fast-break points. His connective passing and timely cuts kept the half-court offense from stagnating. A relentless motor (+3.5 Hustle) and disciplined perimeter defense cemented a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 25.9m -14.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Poor shot selection derailed offensive momentum, as he repeatedly settled for contested, early-clock jumpers. This lack of offensive rhythm allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, compounding the damage. Failing to bend the defense or space the floor effectively resulted in a severely negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 22.0m -12.5
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Over-aggressive closeouts and undisciplined defensive gambles compromised the team's shell, negating his offensive contributions. He managed to slash to the rim effectively, but poor finishing angles left points on the board. The inability to string together stops ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.0
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 19.9m -11.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Maximized a short rotation stint by providing immediate defensive intensity (+4.4 Def) and blowing up multiple perimeter hand-offs. He capitalized on his limited touches by decisively attacking closeouts without hesitation. This burst of energetic, mistake-free basketball provided a massive jolt to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 11.4m -6.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Tyus Jones 1.9m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Barely broke a sweat during a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation. A quick missed jumper and lack of defensive engagement led to a slightly negative rating. The sample size was too small to draw any meaningful tactical conclusions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Logged less than two minutes of pure garbage time action. Paced the floor without registering any tangible events. Impact metrics reflect the opponent scoring a quick bucket during his brief shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

A disastrous two-minute cameo saw the defensive scheme completely collapse during his time on the floor. Blown coverages and a failure to protect the restricted area fueled an immediate opponent scoring run. The sheer density of negative plays in such a short window tanked his metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 75.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -5.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total -6.4
Avg player in 1.9m -1.2
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Zeke Nnaji 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Inserted purely to eat the final minutes of the clock. Provided a token contest on a late defensive possession but otherwise stayed out of the way. Statistical footprint is negligible given the context.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Burned a couple of minutes of game clock without factoring into the offense or defense. Simply occupied space during the final meaningless possessions. The slight negative total stems from an opponent garbage-time basket.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 32.9m
23
pts
6
reb
14
ast
Impact
+1.6

High-usage playmaking yielded gaudy raw production, but defensive lapses and transition bleed kept his actual net impact barely above water. He consistently collapsed the defense to create open looks, yet gave much of that value back by losing his man on backdoor cuts. The sheer volume of touches masked a relatively hollow two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 32.9m -18.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Toumani Camara 30.2m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Perimeter spacing kept the offense fluid, punishing late closeouts with highly efficient catch-and-shoot execution. However, his overall net impact was muted by sluggish defensive rotations that allowed easy counter-attacks. He struggled to contain dribble penetration during crucial second-half stretches, giving back much of his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 30.2m -17.1
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 28.9m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.5

Severe offensive stagnation tanked his overall value, as a barrage of forced perimeter jumpers short-circuited offensive sets. While his point-of-attack defense remained stingy (+4.4 Def), it couldn't salvage the massive negative swing caused by empty possessions. Opponents successfully dared him to shoot, stalling out the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 28.9m -16.4
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 25.4m
18
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.3

Anchored the interior with suffocating rim protection (+7.8 Def) that completely altered the opponent's shot profile. His massive offensive surge was fueled by deep post seals and putbacks rather than forced touches. Controlling the paint on both ends drove a dominant overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +4.6
Defense +7.8
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 25.4m -14.4
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sidy Cissoko 19.3m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Relentless energy defined this stint, generating massive value through loose ball recoveries and timely deflections (+8.8 Hustle). Even with a sporadic offensive rhythm, his willingness to crash the offensive glass kept possessions alive. The unexpected scoring spike was secondary to the sheer physical disruption he caused off the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +8.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 19.3m -11.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Reckless drives into traffic resulted in low-quality attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities. A glaring inability to navigate ball screens (-2.1 Def) allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo all night. Despite decent hustle metrics, poor shot selection and defensive breakdowns cratered his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense -2.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 27.1m -15.4
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Complete offensive invisibility allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him, severely cramping the floor for teammates. He remained an absolute terror in the passing lanes (+7.8 Def), blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs. Ultimately, the 4-on-5 offensive handicap outweighed his elite perimeter disruption.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.8
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 25.2m -14.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.6

Vertical spacing and elite screen-setting unlocked the half-court offense, punishing drop coverages with thunderous lob finishes. His defensive mobility snuffed out multiple pick-and-roll actions before they could materialize. Sustaining a flawless finishing rate around the basket drove a massive positive swing in his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 18.9m -10.8
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kris Murray 17.8m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.0

Passive offensive positioning made him a non-factor on that end, allowing his defender to roam freely as a free safety. He provided solid weak-side help rotations (+2.9 Def) to contest shots at the rim. However, the inability to punish closeouts or generate gravity resulted in a steep negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 17.8m -10.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Blake Wesley 10.6m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Struggled to initiate offensive sets, frequently picking up his dribble prematurely against ball pressure. The resulting stalled possessions led to late-clock heaves and negative momentum. Failing to leverage his quickness to compromise the defense led to a highly ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 10.6m -5.9
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Brief rotational cameo was mostly uneventful, though he did capitalize on a defensive breakdown for a quick perimeter strike. Maintained structural integrity on defense without gambling. A perfectly neutral filler stint that neither helped nor harmed the overall game plan.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0