GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 35.2m
37
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.1

An absolute flamethrower performance from beyond the arc carried the offense, though high-usage turnovers kept his net rating from reaching historic levels. He relentlessly hunted his shot, breaking down the primary defender with ease and bending the entire defensive scheme. This level of scoring gravity dictates the game, even when accompanied by a few careless mistakes.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.4%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +31.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +37.6
Avg player in 35.2m -22.5
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Elijah Harkless 32.1m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless screen navigation were entirely undone by offensive ineptitude. He generated zero gravity on the perimeter, allowing his defender to freely roam and double-team the post. The defensive metrics are spectacular, but playing 4-on-5 offensively is mathematically punishing to the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.1
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 32.1m -20.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bez Mbeng 30.9m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

High-motor defensive sequences couldn't salvage a stint marred by offensive hesitation and severe spacing issues. He passed up open looks, which stalled ball movement and led to late-clock turnovers against a set defense. You simply cannot survive as a guard without posing some semblance of a scoring threat to keep the defense honest.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 30.9m -19.9
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 29.5m
6
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.9

A brutal shooting night completely derailed his offensive value, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. While he tried to compensate with hard closeouts and rebounding effort, the sheer volume of missed bunnies and forced looks sank the lineup. He allowed frustration on the offensive end to lead to undisciplined fouls and poor transition defense.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 29.5m -19.0
Impact -14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S John Konchar 23.1m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

A massive scoring surge from the perimeter masked significant struggles with ball retention and defensive positioning. He capitalized on open catch-and-shoot looks but gave points right back through sloppy transition turnovers and missed rotations. The shooting variance was a huge plus, though the underlying process was flawed.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 111.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 23.1m -14.8
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
24
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

A severe case of tunnel vision led to a barrage of contested, low-efficiency jumpers that bailed out the defense. Despite getting to his spots, the refusal to keep the ball moving resulted in empty possessions and transition run-outs for the opponent. Shot selection must improve drastically for him to be a positive contributor rather than an offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 31.4m -20.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
13
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.0

Defensive ball pressure and active hands generated transition opportunities, but reckless half-court passing limited the overall yield. He consistently collapsed the defense before throwing the ball away in traffic, bleeding value through live-ball turnovers. The two-way activity is highly encouraging if he can just dial back the risk-taking as a facilitator.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 29.4m -18.8
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Dominated the interior with sheer physicality, though his impact was muted by offensive fouls and poor pick-and-roll coverage. He feasted on drop-offs and putbacks, maintaining a streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the rim. Cleaning up the illegal screens and defensive footwork would unlock his true value as a rotational big.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 28.4m -18.2
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
TOR Toronto Raptors
23
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.9

Relentless activity on the margins defined this stellar outing, with elite hustle metrics amplifying his efficient finishing. He consistently beat his man to loose balls and provided crucial weak-side rim deterrence to stifle the opposing frontcourt. This is the prototype for high-leverage role-playing, maximizing every minute on the floor through sheer effort and smart positioning.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +8.1
Defense +12.8
Raw total +39.6
Avg player in 32.2m -20.7
Impact +18.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jamal Shead 28.6m
7
pts
1
reb
14
ast
Impact
-10.2

A severe lack of scoring gravity allowed the defense to sag and clog passing lanes, resulting in a disastrous net rating. The resulting turnovers and forced, low-quality shots completely stalled the team's half-court execution. He must find ways to punish drop coverage to make his primary facilitation truly viable.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.7
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 28.6m -18.4
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja'Kobe Walter 28.1m
21
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Scorching perimeter execution created a massive offensive ceiling, but his net rating was dragged down by careless live-ball turnovers. He repeatedly lost his handle in traffic, fueling opponent fast breaks and bleeding away the value of his hot streak. Tightening his ball security against physical point-of-attack defense is the next developmental hurdle.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 28.1m -18.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 27.4m
20
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
+6.7

Forcing passes into tight windows led to costly transition opportunities for the defense, halving the value of his interior creation. The overall impact remained positive due to excellent weak-side rim deterrence and timely closeouts. If he cleans up the sloppy decision-making in the half-court, this becomes a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.4
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 27.4m -17.7
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S RJ Barrett 24.7m
27
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.0

Slashing to the rim with purpose yielded highly efficient offense, though defensive lapses and ball-security issues capped his ceiling. He repeatedly compromised the opponent's shell through aggressive dribble penetration during the third quarter. Eliminating unforced errors in traffic will be key to translating this downhill pressure into elite overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 24.7m -15.8
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 27.6m
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.2

Breaking out of a severe shooting slump provided a necessary offensive spark, but defensive fouls and poor rotational awareness negated the gains. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, extracting easy trips to the charity stripe and compromising the defensive shell. The scoring resurgence is promising, yet the defensive bleeding remains a critical liability.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 27.6m -17.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Flawless catch-and-shoot execution was undermined by a complete absence of secondary hustle, rendering him a one-dimensional presence. He bled value by failing to secure long rebounds or contest effectively on the perimeter. Pure floor-spacing simply isn't enough when it comes with this level of defensive passivity and zero rotational impact.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +10.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 22.7m -14.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Embracing a dirty-work role, he sacrificed his own offense to anchor the second unit's defensive shell. A sharp drop in usage was offset by gritty interior defense, timely rotations, and a refusal to force bad shots. Maintaining positive impact while scaling down his offensive footprint highlights impressive tactical adaptability.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 17.1m -11.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.9

An inability to generate rim pressure or convert jumpers crippled the offense during his minutes, leading to a severely negative impact. While he managed to disrupt passing lanes defensively, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions was too much to overcome. The lack of a credible scoring threat completely stalled the team's half-court execution and spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 16.0m -10.3
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Short bursts of high-energy play yielded positive results, driven by quick defensive rotations and opportunistic finishing. He maximized his limited run by refusing to force bad shots and staying within the flow of the offense. This disciplined, mistake-free approach is exactly what coaches want from end-of-bench minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 8.9m -5.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Completely neutralized in a brief stint, he failed to register any meaningful offensive impact or rotational value. The opposing frontcourt easily pushed him off his spots, denying him rebounding position and rolling lanes. A lack of physical assertion made him virtually invisible on the floor during his short run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total -3.8
Avg player in 6.8m -4.3
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1