GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 36.5m
23
pts
6
reb
12
ast
Impact
+12.7

Masterful offensive orchestration and elite mismatch hunting defined this highly impactful performance. He consistently broke down the primary line of defense, creating high-value looks for himself and teammates. Paired with suffocating switchability on the other end, he controlled every facet of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 36.5m -20.6
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 4
S Ja'Kobe Walter 33.9m
18
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.3

A high volume of forced perimeter shots and poor floor balance actively hurt the team's offensive flow. While he occasionally connected from deep, the missed heat-checks sparked long rebounds and easy opponent run-outs. His one-dimensional approach made him a net negative despite the scoring flashes.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 33.9m -19.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 31.2m
18
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.1

Aggressive downhill driving generated decent box score value, but atrocious off-ball defense dragged his net impact into the negative. He routinely lost his man on back-cuts and offered zero resistance at the point of attack. The offensive production simply could not cover the points he bled on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 31.2m -17.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 30.6m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Over-dribbling and settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups severely limited his offensive efficiency. Although he showed surprising engagement as a weak-side helper, the stagnant offensive possessions he orchestrated gave the opponent too many transition chances. The resulting empty trips completely erased his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 30.6m -17.3
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 29.6m
18
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.6

Flawless execution in the pick-and-roll and dominant rim protection fueled a massive overall rating. He punished defensive rotations with soft touch around the basket while completely neutralizing interior drives on the other end. His ability to seal off defenders early established a physical tone that the opposition could not match.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 29.6m -16.7
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jamal Shead 24.9m
0
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.2

Incredible hustle and elite playmaking vision were frustratingly offset by an absolute refusal to score. Defenders completely sagged off him, which destroyed the team's half-court spacing and bogged down the offense. His relentless ball pressure was admirable, but playing four-on-five offensively capped his overall value.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +9.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 24.9m -14.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.9

Floor-stretching gravity and excellent defensive rebounding fueled a massive positive impact. He consistently punished drop coverages by popping out for clean looks, forcing the defense into impossible rotations. His active hands in the passing lanes further disrupted the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 21.4m -12.1
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Opportunistic cutting and decisive finishing around the rim drove a highly efficient stint. He capitalized on defensive lapses without demanding the ball, serving as a perfect offensive connector. Solid rotational defense ensured he didn't give back the value he created.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 12.2m -6.9
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Invisible on the offensive end, he failed to generate any gravity during his brief time on the floor. Minor rotational mistakes on defense allowed the opponent to capitalize on open gaps. His inability to impact the game positively resulted in a slight negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -71.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 5.3m -3.0
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided a brief burst of energy during a very short rotational stint. He executed his defensive assignments cleanly without forcing the issue on offense. Kept the ball moving and maintained the team's structural integrity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 4.0m -2.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

A rushed offensive possession and poor spacing characterized his extremely limited minutes. He struggled to find the pace of the game, looking out of sync with the primary ball handlers. Gave up a quick defensive breakdown that kept his overall score slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -131.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 3.9m -2.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Hesitancy to attack the paint stalled the offense during his brief appearance. He allowed his man to dictate the terms of engagement defensively, getting blown by on a crucial possession. The lack of assertiveness made him a liability in a very short window.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -146.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Racked up negative value by being completely out of position during a chaotic transition sequence. He failed to register any meaningful hustle or defensive stats to offset the structural breakdowns. A purely cardio stint that actively hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -146.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 2.2m -1.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

A quick, ill-advised shot attempt immediately put the defense in a bad spot. He offered zero resistance on the other end, allowing the opponent to exploit his side of the floor. This brief, highly damaging stretch tanked his per-minute impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -146.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Zion Williamson 30.7m
22
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.0

Dominant interior finishing anchored his highly positive impact, as he consistently bullied his primary matchups in the paint. He paired this efficient shot profile with active defensive rotations to generate a massive net positive. The sheer gravity of his rim runs dictated the offensive flow whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 30.7m -17.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 30.1m
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Perimeter spacing provided a solid offensive floor, but defensive limitations dragged his overall impact down to neutral. His ability to stretch the defense was largely offset by giving up easy driving lanes on the other end. The scoring volume couldn't mask the underlying defensive bleed.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 30.1m -17.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 27.6m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

A heavy diet of contested, low-efficiency jumpers severely damaged his net impact. While he showed flashes of defensive engagement, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions created a massive deficit. His inability to find a rhythm disrupted the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 27.6m -15.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 27.4m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle metrics couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night. He completely derailed offensive possessions with forced jumpers and poor shot selection. The defensive event creation was spectacular, but playing essentially four-on-five on offense tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 27.4m -15.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Yves Missi 18.8m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite converting his limited looks around the basket, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to timing errors on defensive rotations. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage effectively during his minutes. A lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the opposition to completely ignore him in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 18.8m -10.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jordan Poole 23.4m
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.8

Reckless offensive creation and highly questionable shot selection completely torpedoed his overall score. He compounded his shooting woes with lazy defensive closeouts that routinely compromised the shell. The sheer volume of empty possessions made him a massive net negative during his shift.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 23.4m -13.2
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Derik Queen 22.5m
13
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Relentless activity on the glass and high-motor defensive plays drove a stellar overall rating. He consistently beat his man to loose balls, generating extra possessions that swung the momentum. Even with a few missed bunnies, his physical presence dictated the terms of engagement inside.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.2
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 22.5m -12.7
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Impact cratered due to erratic shot selection and an inability to convert open perimeter looks. He provided decent weak-side defensive activity, but the missed jumpers fueled opponent transition opportunities. The lack of offensive gravity made it difficult for the second unit to generate momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 21.4m -12.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Veteran positioning and reliable screen-setting generated a highly efficient stint. He capitalized on dump-off passes and kept the offense flowing without demanding touches. His massive frame deterred drives just enough to keep his defensive impact above water.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 19.1m -10.8
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Solid hustle metrics were ultimately undone by poor spatial awareness on the offensive end. He clogged driving lanes and struggled to execute dribble hand-offs cleanly. The defensive effort was there, but offensive clunkiness dragged his overall score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 16.7m -9.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.7

A hyper-efficient garbage-time cameo yielded an astronomically high per-minute impact score. He executed perfectly within his limited role, capitalizing on broken defensive coverages for easy finishes. Flawless defensive positioning during this brief stretch further padded his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +146.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0