GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
26
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.1

Blistering perimeter shot-making and impeccable decision-making in the pick-and-roll completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. He recognized drop coverages instantly, punishing retreating bigs with pull-up jumpers before they could contest. This offensive masterclass dictated the terms of engagement for his entire stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +50.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +27.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 25.7m -15.2
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 24.1m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.1

Exceptional point-of-attack defense and disruptive activity in the passing lanes fueled a highly productive shift. He turned deflections into immediate transition opportunities, completely changing the game's momentum during the middle quarters. Smart, decisive cuts to the basket further maximized his value without requiring heavy usage.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +56.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 24.1m -14.2
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mouhamed Gueye 22.4m
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Outstanding rim protection and relentless energy on the glass were ultimately undone by severe offensive limitations. He clogged the paint and struggled to process double-teams, leading to stalled possessions and wasted shot clocks. The defensive value was undeniable, but his inability to finish around the basket dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 22.4m -13.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 22.0m
15
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.2

Masterful manipulation of defensive rotations allowed him to dissect the opposition as a primary facilitator. He repeatedly drew two to the ball off high ball-screens, delivering pinpoint skip passes to open shooters on the weak side. Hitting timely perimeter shots kept defenders honest, compounding his playmaking gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +62.8
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 22.0m -13.0
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 20.1m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Dominating the interior with decisive rim-runs and physical screen-setting created massive structural advantages for the offense. He consistently sealed his man early in the shot clock, providing an easy release valve against perimeter pressure. His ability to switch onto smaller guards defensively without conceding driving angles cemented a stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +57.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 20.1m -11.8
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Suffocating wing defense and flawless weak-side rotations were the primary engines behind his highly positive impact. He completely erased his primary matchup from the game plan, denying catches and fighting through screens with relentless physicality. Capitalizing on a few timely cuts to the basket provided just enough offensive value to round out a superb two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +9.1
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 26.1m -15.4
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Jock Landale 20.6m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Drifting to the perimeter and settling for outside looks neutralized his size advantage and hurt the team's offensive rebounding presence. Opposing bigs easily boxed him out when he lingered around the arc, limiting crucial second-chance opportunities. While his drop-coverage defense was passable, his failure to punish switches in the post left significant value on the table.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 20.6m -12.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.7

Explosive downhill drives and surprising perimeter accuracy made him an impossible cover for opposing forwards. He punished closeouts with violent attacks to the rim, forcing the defense to collapse and scramble in recovery. This aggressive, decisive offensive approach perfectly complemented his switchable, high-energy defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +44.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 19.7m -11.7
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Constant off-ball movement and the threat of his perimeter stroke bent the defense and created crucial driving lanes for teammates. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications during transition, sprinting to the corners for quick-trigger releases. Though occasionally targeted on the other end, his spacing gravity kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 15.9m -9.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 15.5m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

Stagnating the offense with excessive dribbling and late-clock indecision severely hampered the second unit's rhythm. He struggled to create separation against physical point-of-attack defenders, leading to forced, off-balance attempts at the end of possessions. Despite occasional flashes of defensive grit, his inability to initiate sets cleanly proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 15.5m -9.1
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

A sudden barrage of perimeter shot-making provided a massive jolt of energy during a brief rotation stint. He confidently stepped into transition looks, punishing the defense for failing to match up early in the clock. This quick-strike scoring burst easily outweighed a few minor defensive missteps.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 8.0m -4.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Stepping out of his comfort zone to hoist perimeter shots derailed offensive possessions and minimized his interior strengths. He failed to establish a physical presence in the paint, allowing smaller opponents to secure contested rebounds. The brief stint was largely defined by a lack of offensive identity and missed opportunities around the basket.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 6.6m -4.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Firing away without hesitation against scrambled closeouts allowed him to maximize his limited minutes. He maintained excellent spacing discipline, staying anchored in the corners to stretch the defense to its breaking point. Solid positional awareness on the defensive end ensured he didn't give back the value he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 6.6m -3.9
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Extreme perimeter gravity forced defenders to face-guard him constantly, opening up massive cutting lanes for the rest of the unit. Even without connecting from the field, his mere presence warped the opponent's defensive shell and simplified the half-court offense. Smart, veteran positioning on the defensive end further solidified a quietly effective cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 6.6m -3.9
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S GG Jackson 30.2m
26
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

High-volume scoring output masked underlying structural issues that kept his overall impact in the red. He hunted his own offense effectively but frequently fell asleep on weak-side defensive rotations, giving back almost everything he generated. The scoring surge looked great in isolation but failed to move the needle in the broader context of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 30.2m -17.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Rayan Rupert 30.1m
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-24.0

A complete lack of offensive gravity torpedoed his overall impact despite logging an extended run. Defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes for his teammates and stalled the half-court offense. Even a few decent hustle plays couldn't mask the damage of being an absolute non-threat.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense -7.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Raw total -6.2
Avg player in 30.1m -17.8
Impact -24.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Relentless energy and lockdown perimeter defense kept his overall impact positive despite a brutal shooting night. He completely abandoned his recent offensive rhythm but compensated by generating massive value through deflections and contested shots. His ability to anchor the defensive shell proved far more valuable than his missing scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +7.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 25.1m -15.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ty Jerome 23.9m
17
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

Inefficient shot selection nearly erased the value of his aggressive scoring mentality. He forced several contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock, disrupting the team's offensive rhythm and sparking opponent transition runs. However, solid point-of-attack defense and timely closeouts managed to keep his final ledger barely above water.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 23.9m -14.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 20.3m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Floating through his shift without leaving a tangible imprint on the game dragged his overall rating into the negative. He passed up open looks within the flow of the offense, stalling possessions and forcing teammates into late-clock bailout situations. A few decent defensive possessions couldn't make up for his extreme passivity.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -43.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 20.3m -11.9
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Burton 28.5m
20
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Punishing mismatches in the paint and finishing through contact drove a highly efficient and impactful performance. He consistently established deep post position, forcing the defense into rotation and opening up the floor for secondary actions. Combined with excellent positional awareness on the defensive glass, he controlled the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 28.5m -16.8
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.4

A heavy diet of forced, contested perimeter shots tanked his overall efficiency and hurt the team's transition defense. He repeatedly hijacked possessions with early-clock bombs, leading to long rebounds and easy fast-break opportunities for the opponent. Despite showing some grit on the defensive end, his erratic shot selection was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 28.2m -16.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Settling exclusively for perimeter looks severely limited his offensive ceiling and dragged down his overall impact. Defenses quickly realized he had no intention of attacking closeouts, allowing them to crowd his airspace and neutralize his spacing gravity. While his weak-side rim protection was adequate, his one-dimensional shot profile hurt the team's half-court dynamics.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -51.8
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 26.2m -15.5
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.8

Sloppy ball security and mistimed passes severely damaged his team's offensive flow, leading to a steep negative impact. He repeatedly forced the ball into tight windows against set defenses, sparking opponent momentum swings that erased his own scoring contributions. The resulting transition points allowed the opposition to build a lead during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 21.6m -12.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Taj Gibson 5.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A brief, ineffective stint was characterized by slow defensive rotations and an inability to anchor the paint. Opponents immediately targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage, exploiting his lack of lateral quickness to generate wide-open looks. He simply couldn't keep pace with the game's tempo during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -98.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 5.6m -3.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0