GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 41.3m
53
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.6

An absolute masterclass in shot-making against heavy contests defined this dominant offensive explosion. He weaponized the threat of his pull-up jumper to completely collapse the defense during a pivotal third-quarter run. His pristine shot selection and minimal mistakes yielded an astronomical positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 19/28 (67.9%)
3PT 9/14 (64.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.5%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Offense +42.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +44.7
Avg player in 41.3m -24.1
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Nikola Jokić 37.8m
23
pts
21
reb
19
ast
Impact
+11.1

Masterful manipulation of the defense from the high post completely dictated the tempo of the game. His elite defensive positioning and quick outlet passes neutralized the opponent's transition attack. The massive positive impact was slightly tempered only by a few forced needle-thread passes that resulted in live-ball turnovers.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 37.8m -22.2
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 29.4m
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Late defensive rotations and poor closeout angles allowed shooters to feast from the corners. While he found some success spotting up in transition, his inability to stay in front of his man severely compromised the defensive shell. That perimeter porousness was the primary driver behind his steep negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.1
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 29.4m -17.1
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Christian Braun 25.1m
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.4

Getting repeatedly caught on back-screens exposed a lack of off-ball awareness that devastated his defensive rating. He struggled to fight through physical coverage, leading to stagnant offensive possessions when he was forced to initiate. Those defensive breakdowns and offensive stalls compounded into a massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -3.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 25.1m -14.7
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Spencer Jones 20.3m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls padded his hustle metrics during a gritty second-half stretch. Unfortunately, his offensive limitations allowed his defender to roam freely as a free safety, clogging the paint for everyone else. That severe lack of spacing gravity ultimately cratered his overall net value.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.0
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 20.3m -11.9
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.5

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock completely derailed the team's offensive rhythm. His inability to stay attached to his man off the ball compounded his struggles, surrendering easy backdoor cuts. A highly damaging performance defined by poor decision-making and defensive inattention.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 7.2%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 26.9m -15.7
Impact -15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Slashing decisively to the rim punished closeouts and injected vital energy into the half-court offense. He complemented his scoring efficiency with disciplined verticality at the rim, altering multiple shots without fouling. That two-way reliability made him a massive net positive during crucial rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 83.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 23.3m -13.6
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 20.0m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Uncharacteristic struggles navigating ball screens allowed opposing guards to consistently turn the corner. While he tried to impact the game as a cutter, his lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack bled points. That inability to contain dribble penetration was the root cause of his poor net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 20.0m -11.7
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Active hands in the passing lanes generated crucial deflections and bolstered his defensive metrics. However, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to poor spacing and rushed decisions against closeouts. The defensive effort was ultimately undermined by his inability to capitalize on offensive advantages.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 15.8m -9.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 35.8m
26
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.5

Elite weak-side rim protection anchored his massive defensive impact and set a physical tone for the frontcourt. However, his aggressive playmaking resulted in a few costly live-ball turnovers that dragged down his overall net rating. A dominant two-way showing defined by his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls as a help defender.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.5
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 35.8m -21.0
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Max Christie 31.8m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Exceptional off-ball activity yielded high hustle marks, highlighted by a series of timely deflections in the passing lanes. Unfortunately, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive rotational errors that surrendered open corner looks. His perimeter gravity was overshadowed by those costly lapses in transition defense.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +6.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 31.8m -18.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 31.2m
19
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

A relentless effort on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities and boosted his hustle metrics. Despite the strong interior presence, his overall impact was heavily muted by poor shot selection from the perimeter. Opponents sagging off him in the half-court bogged down the spacing during key fourth-quarter possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 31.2m -18.2
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Naji Marshall 29.9m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock severely damaged his offensive efficiency and overall net score. While he showed flashes of physical point-of-attack defense, his inability to convert from deep allowed defenders to pack the paint. A frustrating performance defined by tunnel vision during critical momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 29.9m -17.6
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 Dwight Powell 16.4m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Constant motion and screen-setting defined his highly efficient stint on the floor. He racked up significant hustle value by keeping crucial loose balls alive in the second quarter. His vertical spacing and disciplined drop coverage ensured he remained a net positive despite limited touches.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 16.4m -9.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.4

Pushing the pace in transition generated quality looks for teammates and kept the offense humming. The positive playmaking was entirely undone by poor screen navigation, allowing opposing guards to walk into comfortable pull-up jumpers. That defensive fragility at the point of attack kept his net impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.3
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 19.3m -11.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.7

Operating primarily from the mid-post, he stabilized the half-court offense during a stagnant third-quarter stretch. Despite finding his rhythm, his overall value was dragged down by a handful of careless entry passes that sparked opponent fast breaks. Those unforced errors negated the value of his improved shot-making.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 17.6m -10.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Poor pick-and-roll positioning repeatedly left the rim unprotected, cratering his defensive impact. He found some success as a lob threat, but gave those gains right back by biting on pump fakes against smaller assignments. His inability to anchor the second-unit defense was the defining flaw of his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.6
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 17.4m -10.2
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.7

Over-dribbling against set defenses stalled the offensive flow and led to late-clock bailout attempts. While he managed the game safely without major mistakes, his lack of rim pressure allowed the opposing defense to rest. His passive approach during the second quarter ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 12.9m -7.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Floor spacing remains his primary weapon, drawing constant defensive attention even when operating as a decoy. However, slow lateral movement on the perimeter led to several blow-by drives that hurt his defensive rating. His brief stint was ultimately defined by a lack of physical resistance at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 10.7m -6.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Getting hunted mercilessly on switches defined a brutal defensive stint that tanked his overall score. He offered virtually zero resistance against isolation drives, forcing the defense into constant rotation. The sheer volume of easy points surrendered completely overshadowed his minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 9.3m -5.5
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

A brilliant burst of weak-side rim protection defined his highly productive cameo appearance. He maximized his limited run by staying perfectly disciplined on closeouts and contesting without fouling. That defensive reliability translated immediately to a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 7.7m -4.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0