GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 28.4m
23
pts
5
reb
15
ast
Impact
+20.6

Picked apart the opposing defense with surgical precision, operating as the undisputed hub of the offense. His elite playmaking generated countless wide-open looks, driving an astronomical positive impact. He paired this offensive mastery with a relentless motor, controlling the game's flow from tip to buzzer.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +44.7
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +29.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +35.0
Avg player in 28.4m -14.4
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja'Kobe Walter 28.1m
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Showcased a smooth perimeter stroke that stretched the floor, but his overall impact zeroed out due to defensive miscommunications. He frequently lost his man on back-door cuts, giving away easy baskets that erased his offensive contributions. The scoring punch was evident, but the defensive awareness remains a major work in progress.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +47.3
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 28.1m -14.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 26.5m
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.6

Dominated his minutes by relentlessly attacking the paint and finishing through contact. His massive box score impact was bolstered by exceptional hustle, routinely beating opponents to long rebounds to ignite the break. The aggressive downhill mentality completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 26.5m -13.4
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 25.1m
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

Anchored the defense with brilliant positional awareness, deterring drives and racking up a dominant defensive impact. He was just as effective offensively, maintaining his hyper-efficient streak by feasting on dump-off passes in the dunker spot. A masterclass in knowing his role and executing it flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +54.1
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 25.1m -12.7
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jamal Shead 23.4m
12
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+18.6

Completely changed the complexion of the game with suffocating point-of-attack defense and brilliant distribution. He consistently collapsed the defense and found shooters in rhythm, orchestrating the offense without forcing his own shot. A phenomenal two-way performance that overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 23.4m -11.9
Impact +18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 23.2m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump with confident perimeter strokes, yet still managed to bleed overall value. He was targeted relentlessly in pick-and-roll actions, where poor screen navigation led to open driving lanes. The offensive resurgence was a positive sign, but his defensive liabilities kept him in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +38.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 23.2m -11.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.0

Thrived as a versatile frontcourt piece, using his mobility to exploit slower defenders on the perimeter. His constant motion and high-energy cuts kept the opposing defense scrambling all night. He seamlessly blended efficient scoring with timely weak-side rotations to drive a highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +97.9
+/- +47
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 21.3m -10.8
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
A.J. Lawson 19.2m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.5

Caught fire from beyond the arc, punishing the defense for going under screens with lethal efficiency. His floor-spacing completely opened up the driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. The sudden scoring explosion far above his recent baseline was the defining factor in his stellar overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +68.9
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 19.2m -9.9
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Injected immediate life into the second unit with aggressive drives and active hands in the passing lanes. After a string of scoreless outings, he capitalized on defensive rotations to find easy looks at the rim. His high-motor play translated directly to winning basketball during a crucial momentum shift.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +62.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 12.9m -6.6
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Provided sturdy interior minutes, utilizing his length to alter shots at the rim. He set bone-crushing screens that freed up the guards and finished efficiently when called upon. A low-maintenance, high-efficiency shift that quietly stabilized the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 10.6m -5.4
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Made his presence felt on the glass, using his explosive leaping ability to secure contested rebounds in traffic. He operated effectively as a connective passer out of the short roll, keeping the offense humming. The steady, mistake-free execution drove a solid positive impact in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 10.6m -5.4
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Looked completely disconnected from the offensive flow during a brief, ineffective stint. His hesitation to shoot allowed defenders to sag heavily into the paint, stalling out multiple possessions. The lack of aggression and zero tangible production resulted in a swift hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 7.3m -3.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Barely broke a sweat in a brief cameo, missing his only look from deep. He provided veteran defensive positioning but offered absolutely zero threat on the offensive end. A pure placeholder shift that slightly dragged down the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 29.9m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-19.6

An abysmal shooting night completely cratered his overall impact as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers into heavy traffic. The offensive stagnation negated his surprisingly solid defensive effort and activity on the glass. Opponents successfully walled off his driving lanes, turning him into a highly inefficient perimeter chucker.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -8.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total -4.5
Avg player in 29.9m -15.1
Impact -19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Desmond Bane 26.5m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Strong scoring efficiency was heavily undermined by defensive lapses and likely transition concessions. He found great rhythm operating out of dribble hand-offs, but gave those points right back on the other end. The stark contrast between his positive box production and negative overall impact highlights his struggles containing point-of-attack penetration.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 26.5m -13.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 25.9m
13
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

High-energy hustle plays and active perimeter defense couldn't salvage a negative overall rating. His shot selection was erratic, often rushing pull-up attempts early in the shot clock instead of initiating the offense. The defensive intensity remains his calling card, but offensive disjointedness and poor spacing dragged down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 25.9m -13.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Total passivity on the offensive end derailed his overall value, attempting a fraction of his usual volume after a dominant three-game stretch. While he remained engaged as a screener and rim protector, his reluctance to look at the basket allowed the defense to completely ignore him. He essentially played himself out of the offensive flow by refusing to punish switches.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 25.8m -13.1
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Defensive rotations kept his floor high despite perimeter struggles that dragged down his overall efficiency. Clanking away from deep limited his offensive gravity, allowing defenders to sag and clog the paint. A steadying presence on the wing whose overall impact zeroed out due to the lack of shooting touch.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 24.6m -12.6
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 25.0m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Brought his trademark ball pressure but stalled out the half-court offense with poor perimeter execution. Missing heavily from beyond the arc allowed his primary defender to roam and double the post. The defensive tenacity simply wasn't enough to compensate for the spacing issues he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 25.0m -12.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jett Howard 19.1m
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Managed to find the bottom of the net at a higher clip than usual, yet still bled value across his minutes. A complete lack of secondary playmaking points to a one-dimensional outing where he strictly floated on the perimeter. He was hunted on defense, negating any positive momentum generated by his scoring bump.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -54.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 19.1m -9.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.6

Failed to register a single point after a solid four-game stretch, looking hesitant when attacking closeouts. While he contributed with active hands and secondary playmaking, his offensive zeroes allowed defenders to cheat off him entirely. The negative net rating stems directly from playing four-on-five on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -56.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 18.1m -9.1
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 14.4m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Scrapped hard for loose balls but looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game offensively. His inability to finish through contact or create separation resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent fast breaks. The high-motor approach is promising, but the lack of polish severely limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -41.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 14.4m -7.3
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Provided a massive spark of energy off the bench, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns with hard rolls to the rim. His efficiency inside the arc stabilized the second unit during a chaotic stretch of the game. Despite limited minutes, his offensive assertiveness drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 12.0m -6.1
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 10.2m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Operated as a reliable interior presence with solid screen-setting and rim contests, though his overall footprint was minor. He generated extra possessions with timely hustle plays but lacked the offensive gravity to punish drop coverage. A serviceable stint that was ultimately hampered by defensive rebounding lapses during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -120.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 10.2m -5.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Cain 8.5m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.2

A disastrously brief stint where he looked completely out of sync, snapping a hot streak of efficient play. He forced bad shots into the teeth of the defense and was repeatedly caught out of position in transition. The massive negative impact score reflects a player who actively hurt the team's momentum every second he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 39.1%
Net Rtg -145.5
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -14.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -13.9
Avg player in 8.5m -4.3
Impact -18.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6