GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 31.4m
25
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.4

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense, blending high-level shot-making with precise reads against drop coverage. He manipulated the defense all night, forcing commitments before finding the open man. Active hands in the passing lanes also generated crucial extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +53.8
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 31.4m -17.3
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Green 30.4m
20
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.5

A classic case of box score illusion, where strong scoring numbers were negated by devastating defensive lapses and careless turnovers. He consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts, giving away free points at the rim. The high usage rate ultimately yielded a flat net impact because he gave it all back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 30.4m -16.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Oso Ighodaro 26.1m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Elite rim protection and switchability anchored the defense despite a dip in his usual offensive volume. He consistently altered shots in the paint and secured contested rebounds in traffic. His vertical gravity on rolls still bent the defense even when he wasn't getting touches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 26.1m -14.2
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Jordan Goodwin 24.5m
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Punished mismatches on the interior and dominated the hustle categories to spark the offense. His physical point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm. A gritty, high-motor performance that far exceeded his recent baseline.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 24.5m -13.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Caught fire from deep to punish defenders going under screens, drastically improving his recent shooting woes. While his offensive creation was stellar, he gave some of it back by getting targeted in isolation on the other end. Still, his perimeter gravity fundamentally changed the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 21.5m -11.8
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Spaced the floor effectively and made quick, decisive cuts to the basket when defenders overplayed. His weakside rim rotations saved multiple possessions in transition. He consistently made the right read, avoiding the costly mistakes that plague young forwards.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 28.6m -15.7
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 27.1m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.9

An absolute menace in the passing lanes, translating elite defensive instincts into easy transition offense. He completely locked down his primary matchup, denying catches and blowing up set plays. The offensive efficiency was just a bonus on top of a defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.7
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 27.1m -14.8
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.8

Relentless ball pressure and loose-ball recoveries completely changed the game's momentum. He sacrificed his body on screens and consistently made the extra rotation on defense. That chaotic, high-energy style forced the opponent into rushed decisions and bad passes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +6.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 19.1m -10.4
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Leveraged his massive wingspan to deter drives and secure traffic rebounds. He stayed disciplined in drop coverage, forcing tough floaters rather than conceding layups. A highly efficient, low-usage shift that stabilized the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +55.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 17.2m -9.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CJ Huntley 4.7m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Barely registered an impact during his short run, managing one quick bucket in garbage time. He struggled to grasp the defensive rotations, looking hesitant on closeouts. A negligible shift that neither helped nor hurt the overall game flow.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 4.7m -2.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Koby Brea 4.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

A disastrous brief stint defined by forced, out-of-rhythm perimeter shots. He was repeatedly targeted on defense, failing to stay in front of straight-line drives. The combination of empty possessions and blown coverages tanked his impact score rapidly.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.5
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 4.7m -2.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Completely invisible on offense and a step slow on defensive closeouts. He failed to record a single meaningful stat, effectively playing 4-on-5 basketball while on the floor. Opponents capitalized on his lack of awareness to generate open looks.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 4.7m -2.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 27.3m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.4

A catastrophic net rating driven by stalled isolation sets and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. His severe drop in shooting efficiency from recent games crippled the half-court offense. The scoring volume completely masked how much he gave back in transition defense.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense -7.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 27.3m -14.9
Impact -16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 5
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Perimeter shot selection was highly questionable, repeatedly settling for contested looks early in the shot clock. While he provided solid point-of-attack defense, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently dragged down his overall impact. He struggled to create separation against switch-heavy coverages.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -46.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 25.8m -14.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 25.6m
17
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite defensive rotations and the ability to navigate screens anchored this highly efficient two-way performance. His disruption of passing lanes directly fueled transition opportunities, inflating his massive box impact. A dominant showing that dictated the game's tempo from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.4
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 25.6m -14.0
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S RJ Barrett 23.2m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Empty calorie production where strong offensive creation was entirely erased by off-ball defensive lapses. He gave back value by getting lost on backcuts and committing costly fouls in the paint. The scoring volume couldn't hide a floor presence that ultimately bled points.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -50.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 23.2m -12.9
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jakob Poeltl 16.6m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, clogging the paint and allowing opponents to freely blow up pick-and-roll actions. Despite solid rim protection metrics, his offensive passivity and lack of spacing dragged his overall impact into the negative. Defenders simply sagged off him to crowd the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 16.6m -9.0
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Relentless energy on the glass and loose-ball recoveries generated a massive hustle rating that kept the second unit afloat. He covered up his defensive shortcomings by extending possessions and hitting timely perimeter shots. That high-motor approach perfectly executed his role during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +7.5
Defense -0.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 25.6m -14.0
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 21.2m
2
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.0

Offensive rhythm completely flatlined due to forced drives and heavily contested attempts at the rim. Although he fought hard through screens, his inability to finish penalized the team's half-court efficiency. Defenders simply dared him to shoot, crippling the spacing and tanking his net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -53.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 21.2m -11.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

A sharp regression from his recent hot streak, characterized by rushed perimeter attempts and poor shot quality. He salvaged some value with physical post defense, but the offensive execution was disjointed. Opposing bigs successfully pushed his catch points further out on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 17.8m -9.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

Absolutely game-wrecking defensive versatility defined this breakout performance. He routinely blew up dribble hand-offs and switched seamlessly onto guards on the perimeter. That elite switchability completely neutralized the opponent's primary actions and drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +9.2
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 17.2m -9.5
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Gradey Dick 15.4m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Found his stroke after a brutal slump by hunting high-quality catch-and-shoot looks. His off-ball movement forced defensive rotations, opening up driving lanes for teammates. Solid positional defense ensured he remained a net positive during his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 15.4m -8.4
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Capitalized on limited minutes by decisively attacking closeouts and making quick reads without turning the ball over. His active hands in the passing lanes created easy transition looks. A highly efficient, low-mistake shift that maximized his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 10.6m -5.8
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

Provided exactly what was needed in a brief appearance: mistake-free basketball and veteran spacing. He capitalized on his limited touches and stayed disciplined on defensive assignments. A perfectly neutral shift that bought the starters crucial rest without bleeding points.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 107.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +48.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 7.8m -4.3
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Struggled to anchor the paint during a brief, ineffective stint. He was a step slow on weakside rotations, allowing easy dump-off passes at the rim. The offense bogged down when he failed to set solid screens in the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 5.9m -3.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1