GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Oso Ighodaro 28.4m
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Flawless finishing around the basket was overshadowed by poor positional awareness in transition defense, dragging his overall impact into the red. He executed perfectly as a roll man, but repeatedly surrendered deep post position on the other end. The empty calories of his scoring couldn't offset the structural damage done to the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 28.4m -16.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
0
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-13.9

A catastrophic shooting slump completely derailed the second-unit offense, as he failed to connect on a single attempt from beyond the arc. The opponent brazenly went under every screen, daring him to shoot and completely bogging down the half-court flow. While he scrapped admirably on defense, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 27.4m -16.0
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Devin Booker 26.7m
26
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.0

Surgical dissection of the opponent's blitz coverages fueled a stellar overall impact. Rather than forcing contested looks when trapped, he consistently manipulated the weak side to generate high-value looks for teammates. His disciplined closeouts and active hands ensured his offensive brilliance wasn't wasted.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 26.7m -15.5
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Green 22.1m
31
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.7

An absolute masterclass in three-level scoring drove a towering positive overall impact. He consistently beat primary defenders off the dribble, forcing defensive collapses that he punished with either explosive finishes or step-back daggers. His engaged off-ball activity showed a complete, two-way effort that dictated the pace of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/22 (59.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 22.1m -12.8
Impact +21.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Royce O'Neale 21.9m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Clanking wide-open corner threes severely dampened his offensive value and allowed the defense to aggressively double the primary ball-handlers. Without his usual perimeter efficiency, his lack of off-the-dribble creation became a glaring liability. A surprisingly muted defensive presence meant he couldn't claw back value on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 21.9m -12.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Tenacious on-ball pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm and anchored a highly effective rotational stint. He maximized his offensive opportunities by hitting timely perimeter shots, preventing defenders from sagging into the driving lanes. His ability to blend low-mistake offense with suffocating point-of-attack defense provided a steadying presence.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 23.1m -13.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Relentless off-ball movement stretched the defense to its breaking point, even if his shot efficiency was slightly erratic. He generated immense gravity coming off pin-downs, which opened up the interior for his teammates. Surprisingly stout perimeter defense ensured he remained a net positive despite a few forced looks late in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 20.7m -12.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Dunn 20.1m
9
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite defensive instincts were largely neutralized by a tendency to clog the spacing on the offensive end. While he hit a few timely cuts, his defender consistently roamed off him to muddy the paint for primary drivers. The stellar work he did blowing up pick-and-rolls was offset by the spacing issues he caused offensively.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 20.1m -11.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.8

Complete dominance as a rim deterrent completely altered the opponent's shot profile and drove a massive positive rating. He swallowed up drivers in the paint and converted his offensive touches with ruthless efficiency via putbacks and lobs. His vertical spacing and sheer physical presence dictated the terms of engagement whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 19.6m -11.3
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Hesitancy against defensive closeouts led to disjointed offensive possessions and dragged his overall impact into the negative. He frequently caught the ball with an advantage but paused, allowing the defense to recover and forcing tougher late-clock attempts. Despite holding his own defensively, his inability to make quick decisions stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 18.4m -10.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Failed to leave a meaningful imprint during a brief rotational stint, playing far too passively on the perimeter. He entirely avoided attacking the paint, resulting in stagnant possessions that ended in contested looks for others. A lack of overall aggression kept his impact firmly in the red despite avoiding major defensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 6.2m -3.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Koby Brea 5.2m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Targeted repeatedly in pick-and-roll switches, his defensive liabilities quickly outweighed his brief offensive contributions. Opponents recognized his slow lateral movement and isolated him on the perimeter to generate easy paint touches. Even though he knocked down a quick triple, the defensive bleeding made him a net negative in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 5.2m -3.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 34.0m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.3

Offensive inefficiency completely tanked his overall impact despite a highly disruptive defensive effort. He repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than attacking the rim, leading to a brutal shooting night that stalled the team's momentum. The defensive rotations were crisp, but the empty possessions on the other end were simply too costly.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 34.0m -19.6
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
26
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

High-volume shot creation yielded strong scoring production, but his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive lapses and poor transition floor-balance. He consistently hunted his own offense at the expense of ball movement, leading to stagnant stretches. A lack of secondary effort on closeouts negated much of his scoring value.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 33.4m -19.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 29.4m
26
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+23.0

Absolute dominance in the pick-and-pop game fueled a staggering positive impact. He capitalized on every mismatch, flashing elite touch around the basket while stretching the floor flawlessly from deep. His relentless activity on the offensive glass and disciplined drop coverage rounded out a masterclass performance.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +40.0
Avg player in 29.4m -17.0
Impact +23.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cody Williams 28.8m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-23.4

A catastrophic offensive showing cratered his overall value, driven entirely by an inability to finish through contact or hit open jumpers. Missing every single one of his field goal attempts completely derailed the half-court spacing. While he stayed engaged with a few key hustle plays, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions made him unplayable.

Shooting
FG 0/9 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -11.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total -6.8
Avg player in 28.8m -16.6
Impact -23.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Elijah Harkless 26.9m
4
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.7

Bricklaying from the perimeter severely limited his effectiveness, as defenders routinely sagged off him to clog the driving lanes. Even though he generated extra possessions through sheer grit and hustle, his inability to convert open looks stalled the offense. The negative overall impact stems directly from those wasted scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 26.9m -15.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.2

Defensive miscommunications and an inability to navigate high ball screens dragged his overall impact firmly into the negative. While he found success probing the paint for efficient floaters, he gave those points right back by dying on screens at the point of attack. His positive hustle metrics couldn't mask the structural breakdowns he caused on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 23.7m -13.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
John Konchar 21.7m
3
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.5

Passive offensive tendencies kept his overall impact slightly negative despite highly effective perimeter defense. He passed up multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to completely ignore him on the weak side. His connective passing and disciplined closeouts were solid, but the lack of scoring gravity hurt the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg -49.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 21.7m -12.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bez Mbeng 16.7m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

A highly conservative approach kept him out of the primary action, resulting in a slightly negative footprint despite perfect shooting efficiency. He deferred too quickly in the half-court, failing to pressure the rim or collapse the defense. Solid point-of-attack defense kept him viable, but he was ultimately a non-factor offensively.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 16.7m -9.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Anchored the interior with phenomenal defensive positioning that consistently deterred drives to the rim. He maximized his limited touches by strictly taking high-percentage looks in the dunker spot. The combination of elite rim protection and highly efficient finishing translated to a productive, low-maintenance stint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 16.3m -9.3
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.4

Lethal weak-side spacing completely warped the opposing defense and drove a massive positive impact. He punished every late rotation by burying catch-and-shoot daggers, forcing the opponent to abandon their help principles. Even without generating secondary hustle plays, his sheer shooting gravity made the offense hum flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +65.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +14.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 9.2m -5.3
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0