GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nolan Traore 29.9m
17
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.5

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers dragged down his efficiency and ultimately resulted in a negative floor impact. While his aggressive downhill passing generated some positive momentum, bricking the vast majority of his outside attempts frequently bailed out the opposing defense. The sheer volume of empty outside looks outweighed his playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 29.9m -14.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Drake Powell 28.3m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Lethal spot-up shooting punished defensive lapses and catapulted his overall impact metrics. He capitalized on every sliver of space on the perimeter, drastically exceeding his usual scoring output through elite shot selection. His active hands in the passing lanes also helped translate defensive stops into quick transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 28.3m -13.8
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nic Claxton 23.2m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Anchored the interior with disciplined rim protection and timely defensive rotations that stifled opponent drives. He maintained his usual efficient standard around the basket, serving as a reliable lob threat out of the pick-and-roll. This steady two-way execution kept the team's baseline performance highly stable while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 23.2m -11.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Terance Mann 22.2m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Extreme offensive efficiency and opportunistic perimeter shooting kept his impact firmly in the green. He rarely forced the issue, instead capitalizing on defensive rotations to knock down uncontested spot-up looks. This steady, mistake-free execution provided a reliable stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 22.2m -11.0
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Noah Clowney 20.1m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

A sudden surge in perimeter confidence completely transformed his offensive profile and drove a massive positive net rating. By stepping out and punishing drop coverage from deep, he forced opposing bigs out of the paint and scrambled the defensive shell. His active rebounding further compounded the damage during a dominant rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 20.1m -9.8
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Ben Saraf 25.4m
8
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.7

Poor finishing in traffic severely compromised his offensive value, leading to a steep negative net rating despite his active facilitation. He struggled to convert through contact around the rim, resulting in empty possessions that frequently ignited opponent fast breaks. His connective passing couldn't salvage the damage caused by his inability to score efficiently.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 25.4m -12.4
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Ochai Agbaji 25.1m
18
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

An aggressive scoring mentality completely shattered his recent passive streak, driving a highly positive two-way impact. He relentlessly attacked closeouts and found success in the mid-range, punishing defenders who expected him to defer. This sudden offensive assertiveness forced the opposition to entirely alter their rotational schemes.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.1m -12.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
E.J. Liddell 21.4m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Forcing contested shots against set defenses tanked his overall effectiveness and stalled the team's half-court rhythm. He struggled mightily to find the range from the perimeter, with his missed jumpers frequently leading to long rebounds and transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite showing some resistance on the defensive end, his offensive struggles were too heavy a burden.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 21.4m -10.5
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Pure perimeter marksmanship defined this highly efficient outing, as he exclusively hunted and converted looks from beyond the arc. His floor-spacing gravity forced defenders to stay glued to the perimeter, opening up crucial driving lanes for his teammates. By strictly playing to his strengths, he delivered a clean, positive boost to the offensive unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 20.2m -9.9
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Maximized a brief rotational stint by playing strictly within the flow of the offense and taking only high-percentage looks. His mistake-free execution and timely perimeter conversion kept the offensive engine humming smoothly. This disciplined approach ensured the team maintained its advantage during the non-starter minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 15.9m -7.8
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

A burst of high-octane energy in limited minutes completely flipped the game's momentum during his brief stint. He crashed the glass with reckless abandon and made quick, decisive reads that kept the offensive shell moving. His ability to instantly impact the game's physicality without needing offensive volume was a major asset.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 8.3m -4.0
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 37.0m
17
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

A surprising scoring surge was completely undone by severe defensive bleeding during his extended minutes on the floor. While he found a rhythm attacking the basket, he consistently lost his assignments on the perimeter and allowed open driving lanes. The heavy negative impact score reflects how much his defensive lapses fueled opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 37.0m -18.2
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite maintaining his reliable interior finishing, his overall net rating slipped into the red due to disruptive offensive flow issues and defensive lapses in transition. He provided excellent physical resistance in the paint and generated strong hustle metrics, but struggled to translate those individual wins into positive team momentum. The raw production masked how much he gave back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 34.3m -16.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Maxime Raynaud 31.8m
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

His inability to convert efficiently around the basket dragged down his overall impact, snapping a recent streak of highly accurate finishing. Although he stayed active on the glass, empty possessions in the half-court offense proved detrimental. Opponents successfully neutralized his interior presence by forcing him into contested, low-percentage looks.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 31.8m -15.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Carter 29.0m
20
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.0

Excellent shot selection and timely perimeter execution fueled a massive spike in his overall effectiveness. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive spot-up shooting, shattering his recent scoring averages while maintaining high-level engagement on the boards. This two-way effort anchored the team's most productive stretches of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 29.0m -14.2
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Daeqwon Plowden 25.7m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.5

A brutal perimeter shooting slump completely cratered his overall impact, as he missed every single attempt from beyond the arc. While he managed to salvage some value through active defensive rotations, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions was too costly. This performance marked a jarring regression from his recent highly efficient scoring stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 25.7m -12.6
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Aggressive perimeter hunting yielded a strong positive impact, as he confidently stepped into his outside shots to punish dropping defenders. Even without facilitating for others, his floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for his teammates. He paired this offensive assertiveness with disciplined closeouts on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 26.4m -12.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Pure floor-spacing value wasn't quite enough to overcome the defensive liabilities he presented in space. He doubled his recent scoring average by exclusively hunting looks from beyond the arc, but opponents ruthlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions. The resulting defensive breakdowns slightly outweighed his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.5m -11.5
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.3

A complete lack of scoring gravity severely handicapped the offense, allowing defenders to aggressively play the passing lanes without fear of him attacking the rim. His inability to convert a single field goal attempt resulted in a heavily negative net rating despite his playmaking efforts. The opponent's strategy to sag off him completely stalled the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 9.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 18.3m -8.9
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

High-energy rotational minutes provided a noticeable spark, driven by relentless activity in the painted area. He maximized his brief time on the floor by setting bruising screens and contesting shots at the rim, translating physical play into a sturdy positive impact. His disciplined role execution kept the second unit stable.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 14.1m -6.9
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0