GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 39.4m
31
pts
6
reb
14
ast
Impact
+7.9

Broke the opposing defense down with a lethal combination of pull-up shooting and elite pick-and-roll navigation. His aggressive shot-making from beyond the arc stretched the floor, opening up passing lanes that he expertly exploited.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +28.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 39.4m -24.9
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 38.6m
33
pts
15
reb
12
ast
Impact
+11.3

Operated with surgical precision from the high post, dissecting double-teams with elite vision and unmatched touch. His ability to dictate the pace of the game and generate flawless looks for himself and others resulted in a masterclass of offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 13/16 (81.2%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +25.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +35.6
Avg player in 38.6m -24.3
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 76.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Aaron Gordon 30.9m
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Provided a steady dose of physical drives and solid weak-side rim protection, keeping his baseline value afloat. The negative final tally stems directly from empty possessions triggered by missed three-pointers that stalled the half-court momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 30.9m -19.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 26.2m
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Settled exclusively for perimeter jumpers, completely abandoning any threat of dribble penetration. While his defensive rotations were crisp, the one-dimensional shot profile allowed the opposing defense to stay home and limit his overall influence.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 26.2m -16.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 21.7m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Struggled to leave a footprint on the game, looking hesitant when attacking closeouts. A lack of disruptive plays on the defensive end compounded his offensive passivity, leading to a significant negative swing during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 21.7m -13.7
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Embraced his role as a pure floor-spacer, taking every single shot from behind the three-point line. The streaky perimeter execution paid off just enough to yield a positive impact, though the lack of secondary playmaking capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +43.4
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 28.3m -18.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.1

Offensive rhythm completely evaporated amidst a flurry of forced, heavily contested mid-range jumpers. The resulting empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent severely punished the team during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 30.9%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 21.0m -13.3
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
Bruce Brown 15.2m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Delivered a quiet, low-usage shift characterized by opportunistic cuts and reliable finishing. However, his inability to generate defensive events or force turnovers left his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 15.2m -9.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Focused entirely on doing the dirty work, crashing the glass and fighting through screens. The complete absence of offensive gravity allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint, dragging down the unit's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 13.7m -8.6
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Failed to find the mark during a brief cameo, rushing his perimeter attempts against tight coverage. Defensive lapses in transition further marginalized his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 5.1m -3.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Elijah Harkless 41.2m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

An absolute menace on the defensive end, generating immense value through deflections and relentless ball pressure. Unfortunately, that elite defensive effort was entirely undone by a disastrous shooting performance characterized by forced, late-clock heaves.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +8.7
Defense +12.3
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 41.2m -26.2
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cody Williams 30.3m
24
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.8

Relentless rim pressure and decisive playmaking defined this highly efficient outing. He consistently collapsed the defense to create high-quality looks for teammates, maximizing his offensive footprint without forcing a single three-point attempt.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 30.3m -19.1
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 27.5m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Impact cratered due to poor perimeter shot selection, constantly settling for contested looks from deep. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to stretch the floor effectively bogged down the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 27.5m -17.4
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggled to find his usual scoring rhythm, taking a backseat in the offensive hierarchy. However, he managed to salvage his overall rating through engaged point-of-attack defense and timely hustle plays that kept the secondary unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 25.5m -16.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Filipowski 24.8m
25
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.8

Dominated the interior with a soft touch around the basket, continuing a dominant streak of high-percentage finishing. His overall value would have been even higher if not for a string of ill-advised attempts from beyond the arc that bailed out the defense.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 24.8m -15.7
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 30.2m
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Thrived as an opportunistic cutter and transition finisher, capitalizing on every breakdown in the opponent's rotation. His defensive positioning was equally superb, consistently blowing up actions before they could materialize into scoring threats.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.6
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 30.2m -19.2
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
16
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite an efficient scoring night, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive miscommunications and costly turnovers. The raw production masked stretches where he struggled to organize the offense against heavy perimeter pressure.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 29.4m -18.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bez Mbeng 18.6m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

A complete non-factor offensively, failing to apply any pressure on the rim or space the floor. He leaned heavily on his defensive motor and hustle to stay on the court, but the lack of scoring gravity ultimately cramped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 18.6m -11.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Made the most of limited minutes by dominating the restricted area and converting second-chance opportunities. His physical screen-setting and reliable finishing provided a massive jolt of energy to the interior offense.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 12.4m -7.8
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1