GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 42.1m
24
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.8

A brutal diet of contested, isolation mid-range jumpers completely derailed the offense. A massive volume of missed shots wasted critical possessions and allowed the defense to easily set up in transition. The sheer quantity of inefficient attempts negated his otherwise solid physical interior defense.

Shooting
FG 11/27 (40.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 42.1m -20.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaden McDaniels 37.0m
25
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.3

Suffocating perimeter defense combined with lethal offensive efficiency resulted in a standout two-way performance. He consistently punished defensive closeouts with decisive drives and knocked down open catch-and-shoot looks. Locking down the opposing team's primary wing creator cemented his massive positive influence.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.0
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 37.0m -18.2
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Over-reliance on the three-point shot yielded mixed results that ultimately dragged down his overall rating. While he spaced the floor adequately, his inability to convert inside the arc or draw fouls made him somewhat one-dimensional. Defensive gambles in the passing lanes occasionally compromised the team's half-court shell.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 36.3m -17.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mike Conley 28.7m
5
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.9

Exceptional off-ball activity and veteran floor generalship completely masked a poor shooting night. He generated massive value through relentless hustle plays, diving for loose balls and securing long rebounds to extend possessions. His calming presence and flawless offensive organization kept the unit humming despite his own shots not falling.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +11.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 28.7m -14.0
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 28.1m
14
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.9

Total mastery of the paint on both ends of the floor drove an elite impact rating. He altered countless shots at the rim, single-handedly blowing up pick-and-roll actions with his flawless drop coverage. Capitalizing on lob opportunities and put-backs ensured his offensive touches were highly efficient.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +8.4
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 28.1m -13.7
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 1
Naz Reid 30.9m
14
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

High-energy rotations and physical interior defense pushed his impact score firmly into the green. Even with a streaky shooting performance, his willingness to battle for extra possessions and contest shots at the rim provided immense value. He consistently outworked opposing bigs during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +7.3
Defense +7.7
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 30.9m -15.2
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
3
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

A complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Clanking the vast majority of his looks from the field stalled out multiple offensive sets. While his defensive positioning remained sound, the offensive stagnation he caused was too detrimental to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.3%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 30.0m -14.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Bones Hyland 29.6m
8
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.8

Erratic shot selection and forced perimeter attempts severely damaged his overall effectiveness. He frequently hijacked the offense with early-clock, contested jumpers that resulted in long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. The lack of scoring efficiency completely overshadowed his efforts to distribute the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 29.6m -14.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Brief garbage-time minutes provided virtually zero opportunity to influence the game's outcome. He simply filled space on the floor during the final moments of a decided contest. The negligible negative score reflects standard rotational noise rather than poor play.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +225.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
16
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Defensive versatility and strong rebounding effort were completely overshadowed by costly offensive possessions. Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks resulted in empty trips that allowed the opposition to build momentum. His inability to convert efficiently from deep negated the value of his otherwise solid rim protection.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 47.6m -23.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Amen Thompson 45.1m
11
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite playmaking vision created numerous high-value opportunities for teammates, but his overall impact zeroed out due to a lack of scoring gravity. A distinct reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. Occasional live-ball turnovers when forcing passes into tight windows erased the gains from his offensive orchestration.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.1m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 45.1m -22.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kevin Durant 43.1m
30
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.4

Despite strong defensive metrics and active hands, offensive inefficiency dragged his overall impact into the red. A barrage of missed mid-range jumpers disrupted the team's half-court rhythm and fueled opponent transition pushes. The high scoring volume ultimately masked a significant drop from his usual highly efficient shooting standards.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 43.1m -21.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S Alperen Sengun 42.8m
30
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.3

Total dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact score. He consistently punished mismatches on the low block, generating high-quality looks that stabilized the offense during crucial stretches. Excellent positional awareness and active hands on defense further amplified his immense value on the floor.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.8m
Offense +24.5
Hustle +7.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +37.2
Avg player in 42.8m -20.9
Impact +16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Reed Sheppard 27.8m
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.0

Errant perimeter shooting severely handicapped the offense, as he bricked a high volume of attempts from beyond the arc. While his point-of-attack defense remained highly disruptive, the constant empty offensive trips allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo. The sheer volume of low-quality, rushed jumpers cratered his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +7.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 27.8m -13.6
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Tari Eason 20.9m
3
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Forcing contested shots at the rim led to a dismal conversion rate that heavily penalized his rating. He struggled to find any rhythm offensively, often stalling ball movement with ill-advised, straight-line drives. Even with adequate defensive positioning, the wasted offensive possessions proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 20.9m -10.3
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Disastrous rotational minutes were defined by poor decision-making and a lack of offensive flow. He consistently failed to initiate the offense effectively, leading to stagnant, late-clock situations that bailed out the defense. The inability to generate dribble penetration made him a severe liability during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 12.1m -5.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Short-stint effectiveness was entirely anchored by elite rim deterrence. He completely shut off the paint during his brief time on the floor, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Operating strictly as a defensive anchor allowed him to post a positive rating despite zero offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 9.8m -4.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Opportunistic shot-making during a brief rotation stint provided a minor boost to the second unit. He stayed strictly within his role, avoiding the momentum-killing mistakes that often plague end-of-bench minutes. A timely perimeter conversion highlighted a quiet but perfectly adequate shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 8.4m -4.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Complete invisibility on the offensive end rendered his minutes a net negative. Without any shot attempts or meaningful hustle plays to tilt the scales, his presence effectively forced the team to play four-on-five. Opponents easily ignored him on the perimeter to double-team primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 6.3m -3.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Inserted strictly for a situational defensive possession at the end of a period. The microscopic sample size offered no opportunity to impact the game in either direction. A slight negative grade stems purely from baseline rotational adjustments rather than on-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0