GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 36.1m
25
pts
15
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.9

Absolute mastery of the two-man game tore the opposing defensive shell to shreds. His ability to toggle seamlessly between bullying smaller defenders in the post and hitting trail threes (+24.6 Box) dictated the entire geometry of the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +24.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 36.1m -18.8
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jamal Murray 34.5m
20
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.9

Operated more as a tactical facilitator than a primary scorer, picking his spots with surgical precision against aggressive blitzes. That patient shot selection yielded highly efficient offense (+17.1 Box), even if the overall scoring volume dipped well below his recent explosive average.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 34.5m -18.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Christian Braun 32.8m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Passing up open driving lanes to settle for perimeter jumpers backfired, with three missed triples stalling the offense. Despite efficient finishing inside the arc, his inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint against the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 32.8m -17.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Peyton Watson 22.3m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

Forcing contested looks in the mid-range severely damaged his overall efficiency, as eight missed field goals bailed out the opposing defense. While he provided some resistance on the other end (+1.5 Def), the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his net score firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 22.3m -11.6
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cameron Johnson 19.1m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Sacrificed his usual scoring volume to act as a defensive anchor on the perimeter (+2.8 Def). His disciplined closeouts and timely weak-side rotations completely disrupted the opponent's ball movement, driving a positive impact despite the quiet offensive night.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 19.1m -10.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.9

Catch-and-shoot lethality from the corners broke the game open during a pivotal second-half stretch. By punishing late rotations with four timely triples, he generated a massive offensive rating (+19.3 Box) that far exceeded his usual production.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 26.1m -13.6
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 24.7m
15
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Transition opportunism and decisive slashing doubled his usual scoring output. His relentless downhill attacks tilted the defense, while a trio of connected three-pointers punished defenders who dared to sag off him.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 24.7m -12.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Poor spatial awareness on the offensive end led to clogged driving lanes and disrupted the team's rhythm. Even though he found the bottom of the net a few times, the disjointed half-court execution during his minutes sank his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 17.6m -9.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 7.9m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A lack of physical presence on the interior allowed opponents to secure crucial second-chance opportunities. Without any offensive gravity to compensate, his minutes were a noticeable drag on the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +80.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 7.9m -4.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Made his mark entirely through gritty off-ball work during a short rotational stint. Navigating screens flawlessly to blow up dribble hand-offs (+1.3 Def) ensured he remained a net positive despite not attempting a single shot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 6.0m -3.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Completely neutralized by a quicker frontcourt matchup that forced him out of his comfort zone. The inability to establish deep post position rendered him an offensive non-factor and led to a swift exit from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 5.1m -2.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Maximized a two-minute garbage time appearance with high-energy floor burns (+1.3 Hustle). A pair of quick connective passes in transition instantly boosted his advanced metrics before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +91.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Flawless game management during a brief cameo kept the offense organized and turnover-free. Pushing the pace effectively generated a quick burst of positive momentum (+2.8 Box) in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +91.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

An explosive two-minute burst of instant offense completely ambushed the opposing bench unit. Drilling a quick perimeter look and finishing strong inside generated a massive per-minute impact spike (+5.1 Total).

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 66.7%
Net Rtg +91.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Wandered through a brief end-of-game stint without making any discernible positive contributions. A blown defensive assignment in the dying seconds was enough to drag his microscopic sample size into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +91.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Gui Santos 32.5m
9
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

A sharp regression in finishing efficiency derailed his overall impact, snapping a four-game streak of highly accurate shooting. While he generated strong secondary value through defensive rotations (+2.5 Def) and loose ball recoveries (+4.7 Hustle), the six empty possessions from missed field goals stalled out the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 32.5m -17.0
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.2

Elite shot selection and decisive off-ball movement fueled a massive offensive rating (+25.3 Box). By consistently punishing defensive closeouts with in-rhythm triples, he dictated the tempo of the game and generated highly efficient scoring opportunities for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +25.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense 0.0
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 31.8m -16.6
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Draymond Green 29.6m
13
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.5

Settling for perimeter jumpers capped his effectiveness, as five missed three-pointers functioned as momentum-killing empty trips. He still orchestrated the offense beautifully from the high post (+9.9 Box), but the overall impact flatlined due to those low-value shot attempts early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 29.6m -15.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.6

Flawless perimeter execution defined this outing, with a perfect spray of pick-and-pop threes stretching the opposing frontcourt beyond their breaking point. That elite floor spacing (+17.9 Box) created massive driving lanes for teammates, completely overshadowing a relatively quiet night protecting the rim.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/5 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 28.6m -15.0
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

A complete scoring shutout doomed his rating, as a string of forced, contested jumpers resulted in dead-end possessions. He tried to salvage his shift with relentless point-of-attack pressure (+5.3 Hustle), but the total lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely double-team elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -58.4
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 25.3m -13.2
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Pat Spencer 24.2m
7
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite connective passing salvaged what was otherwise a rough shooting night. Despite bricking four perimeter looks that bogged down the half-court spacing, his ability to read the defense and deliver pinpoint skip passes kept the offensive engine humming (+11.7 Box).

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 33.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 24.2m -12.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Ruthless efficiency around the basket drove a highly positive shift. Operating masterfully out of the dunker spot, his near-perfect finishing punished over-helping defenders and provided a massive spark of high-percentage offense.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 21.0m -10.9
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LJ Cryer 16.0m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.2

A disastrous perimeter shooting display cratered his overall value, with six missed triples directly fueling opponent transition opportunities. The complete absence of offensive rhythm (-6.9 Box) negated a few solid weak-side defensive rotations, sinking his net score into the basement.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -51.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -6.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 16.0m -8.4
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

An offensive blanking completely derailed his stint, marking a sharp drop-off from his recent double-digit scoring average. The inability to create separation against physical wing defenders led to empty possessions and a severely negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 11.4m -5.9
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Seth Curry 7.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

A brief, cardio-only shift yielded zero tangible production across the board. Without his usual perimeter gravity to stretch the floor, the offense stagnated during his minutes, leading to a quick hook and a negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -43.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 7.2m -3.8
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Short but effective rim protection duties kept his overall impact slightly in the green (+1.2 Total). Even without attempting a meaningful shot, his verticality in the paint deterred multiple drives during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 4.6m -2.5
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverage during his brief cameo allowed opposing guards to turn the corner too easily. That defensive liability, combined with zero offensive output, resulted in a quick negative dent in the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -95.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A perfectly neutral performance defined by a single successful backdoor cut. He blended into the background otherwise, failing to register any impactful hustle or defensive metrics during his limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -95.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.9m -2.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0