GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 37.5m
18
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.2

Elite two-way execution defined this highly impactful performance. He locked down the perimeter defensively while picking his spots with surgical precision on offense, punishing defensive rotations. His ability to blend high-end point-of-attack defense with mistake-free shot selection drove a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 37.5m -18.2
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.3m
20
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.0

Anchored the game on both ends with exceptional rim protection and surprising perimeter spacing. Forcing the opposing bigs to step out and guard the arc completely opened up the driving lanes for his teammates. His defensive versatility stifled multiple actions, resulting in a dominant net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.6
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 36.3m -17.6
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Johnson 36.0m
20
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.3

Controlled the glass and finished reliably inside the arc to maintain a positive overall influence. While his defensive metrics were solid, his impact was slightly muted by occasional offensive stagnation. Still, his physical presence and timely cuts kept the frontcourt stabilized.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 36.0m -17.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.9

Off-the-charts hustle metrics salvaged a night where his jumper frequently betrayed him. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort, diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes. That relentless energy overcame his inefficient shot volume to keep his overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +10.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 35.0m -16.9
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 30.3m
14
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.9

Forced too many contested looks, resulting in a clunky offensive rhythm that dragged down his overall rating. The high volume of empty possessions allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. Despite adequate defensive positioning, his shot selection was too detrimental to overcome.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 30.3m -14.7
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

High-energy hustle plays and athletic defensive closeouts compensated for a spotty shooting performance. He settled for too many perimeter jumpers instead of attacking the rim, which suppressed his offensive efficiency. However, his physical tools and effort on the margins kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 23.3m -11.3
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Lethal perimeter marksmanship in a condensed role provided a massive spark off the bench. He punished defensive breakdowns by knocking down every deep look he took, instantly tilting the floor. This hyper-efficient spacing, combined with attentive defense, resulted in a stellar net rating for his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 15.6m -7.6
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 14.3m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Struggled to generate any offensive momentum during his stint, looking hesitant against ball pressure. While he competed defensively, his inability to orchestrate the offense or threaten the rim made his minutes a net negative. He was largely a non-factor in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 14.3m -6.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Provided a slight positive lift by focusing entirely on defensive rotations and rebounding fundamentals. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead using his length to clog passing lanes and contest interior looks. It was a disciplined, low-usage shift that helped maintain the team's defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 11.7m -5.7
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 40.1m
29
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
-10.6

Massive shot volume with brutal inefficiency completely cratered his overall impact. Despite maintaining solid defensive engagement, the sheer number of empty possessions he generated on offense was too much to overcome. His tendency to force contested looks severely disrupted the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 9/29 (31.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 8/14 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 41.8%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 40.1m -19.4
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Derrick White 35.7m
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

Elite defensive instincts and top-tier hustle plays were heavily offset by a frigid shooting night. Clanking a high volume of perimeter jumpers stalled out multiple offensive sets and gave away valuable possessions. He competed hard on the margins, but the poor shot selection ultimately sank his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 29.2%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +6.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 35.7m -17.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jordan Walsh 31.3m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Defensive metrics and hustle plays kept him viable on the floor, but his offensive passivity limited his overall value. He struggled to space the floor effectively, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the paint. A lack of offensive gravity ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 31.3m -15.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Luka Garza 28.2m
20
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.2

Near-perfect offensive execution drove a massive positive impact score. He punished mismatches inside and stretched the floor flawlessly, capitalizing on every touch without forcing bad looks. This hyper-efficient scoring clinic anchored the team's half-court flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 28.2m -13.7
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Active hustle numbers couldn't mask a largely invisible offensive performance. Failing to convert open perimeter looks negated his floor-spacing value and allowed the defense to ignore him. His inability to generate meaningful offensive pressure resulted in a noticeably negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 25.7m -12.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Hot perimeter shooting provided a scoring punch, but his impact suffered due to struggles inside the arc and minimal defensive resistance. A lack of secondary playmaking or hustle contributions meant his value was entirely tied to his jumper. When forced to defend in space, he gave back too much ground.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 25.6m -12.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Hauser 21.0m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

A completely neutralized performance where he failed to find open seams in the defense. Without his usual volume of perimeter attempts to stretch the floor, his offensive gravity was nonexistent. Offering zero defensive resistance further compounded his negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.0
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 21.0m -10.2
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Strong interior positioning and defensive awareness yielded a positive net rating in a short stint. He played strictly within his role, avoiding costly mistakes while contesting shots effectively around the rim. This low-maintenance, high-discipline approach provided quality rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 13.4m -6.5
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Flashes of capable shot-making weren't enough to keep his overall impact out of the red during his brief rotation turn. He struggled to establish a physical presence, allowing opponents to dictate the terms of engagement. A few minor rotational lapses on defense tipped the scales negatively.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 12.6m -6.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Maximized a very brief appearance by providing immediate defensive resistance and converting his only touch. He protected the paint well during his short run, altering a few drives to generate stops. It was a textbook example of efficient, mistake-free emergency minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 5.9m -2.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Max Shulga 0.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Stepped onto the floor for a momentary cameo that yielded no measurable impact. The sample size was too small to evaluate any tactical execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.3m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Tonje 0.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged literal seconds of court time at the end of a period. Did not have enough opportunity to register any meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.3m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0