GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 30.7m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

A brutal shooting night completely derailed his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers against set defenses. While his defensive intensity (+5.1) and effort on the glass (+3.0) remained elite, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his net impact into the abyss. Opponents successfully sped up his processing time.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.9%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -51.2
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 30.7m -14.2
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Max Christie 28.0m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+5.1) was completely overshadowed by an inability to contribute on the other end of the floor. Passing up open looks and stalling the offensive flow led to a harsh negative impact rating. He operated as a pure defensive specialist to the detriment of team spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg -50.5
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 28.0m -13.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 24.4m
21
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Unstoppable as a roll man, he punished the interior with ruthless efficiency to continue his hot streak around the rim. However, his massive box score production was somewhat muted by sluggish pick-and-roll defense (-0.3), allowing guards to turn the corner too easily. His offensive gravity alone still dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/8 (37.5%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -47.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 24.4m -11.3
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 22.6m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.5

Despite flashing solid positional defense (+3.3), his overall impact cratered due to disjointed offensive execution. The massive gap between his box score and final net rating (-11.5) points to crippling live-ball turnovers and poor spacing that stalled out half-court sets. He struggled to find any sustained rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -51.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 22.6m -10.4
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ryan Nembhard 20.2m
8
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.4

Forcing the issue as a primary initiator resulted in a barrage of low-quality, contested floaters that bailed out the defense. While he showed decent hustle metrics, the poor shot selection and likely playmaking misreads severely damaged his overall floor impact. He needs to let the game come to him rather than pressing.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 20.2m -9.3
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.9

Smothering perimeter defense (+7.1) anchored his positive impact, as he consistently disrupted passing lanes and harassed ball-handlers. While his finishing in traffic was somewhat erratic, his ability to generate stops and push the pace kept the team afloat. His two-way motor never stopped running.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -37.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.1
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 27.8m -12.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

Masterful manipulation of the whistle defined this shift, generating all his offense exclusively from the charity stripe by drawing contact in the paint. Elite rim-deterrence (+6.8) and relentless screen-setting (+3.5 hustle) maximized his value without requiring traditional field goal attempts. A textbook example of high-IQ, low-usage impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.3%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.8
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 23.6m -10.9
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.1

A disastrous perimeter shooting slump completely neutralized his floor-spacing gravity, allowing defenders to aggressively pack the paint. Clanking open catch-and-shoot opportunities derailed multiple offensive possessions and fueled opponent transition runs. The lack of scoring punch resulted in a heavily damaging overall shift.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 22.1m -10.3
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Hunting for perimeter looks resulted in a highly inefficient shooting night that ultimately stalled the second-unit offense. Defensive lapses (-0.8) and poor closeouts compounded his struggles, erasing any value gained from his occasional floor-spacing. He gave up too much ground on the perimeter to justify the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 17.9m -8.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Smith 17.7m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Strong positional awareness on the defensive end (+3.0) salvaged a shift plagued by clunky offensive execution. Rushing his release led to several empty trips, but his commitment to boxing out and contesting shots ensured he remained a net positive. He found ways to contribute when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 17.7m -8.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 5.0m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Failed to make a dent during a brief rotational cameo, rushing a pair of low-quality looks that resulted in empty possessions. A lack of playmaking or defensive disruption left him as a noticeable weak link during his minutes. He simply could not match the speed of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 5.0m -2.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Ayo Dosunmu 33.2m
18
pts
15
reb
12
ast
Impact
+17.7

Elite defensive metrics (+11.1) combined with highly efficient shot selection drove a massive positive impact. Controlling the defensive glass from the guard position allowed him to constantly ignite transition opportunities. His steady two-way execution set the tone for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +44.0
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +11.1
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 33.2m -15.5
Impact +17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 31.4m
24
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

A blistering offensive rhythm carried his overall value, marking his third straight game punishing mismatches with high-percentage looks. However, sluggish rotations on the defensive end (-1.0) and hidden cost factors significantly dragged down what could have been a monster overall rating. He remains a pure offensive engine right now.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +40.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 31.4m -14.6
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Perimeter floor-spacing was elite, as he punished defensive drop coverage with a barrage of timely catch-and-shoot daggers. Despite strong point-of-attack defense (+4.4), his overall impact flatlined near zero, suggesting empty possessions or live-ball mistakes offset his shooting surge.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +46.9
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 29.7m -13.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 28.3m
14
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Imposing rim protection and active hustle plays (+2.9) anchored a highly effective interior performance. By strictly limiting his offensive touches to high-percentage lobs and putbacks, he maximized his value without wasting possessions. His vertical gravity continues to warp opposing defensive schemes.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 28.3m -13.2
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Mike Conley 14.0m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Offensive invisibility completely cratered his overall rating during a brief, ineffective stint. Failing to dent the scoreboard or pressure the defense allowed opponents to aggressively cheat off him and clog the paint. He simply could not find any rhythm to justify extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 14.0m -6.5
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 24.9m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock severely damaged his offensive efficiency and overall team flow. A continuing trend of poor shot selection (-6.9 total impact) allowed the opposition to leak out in transition off long rebounds. He needs to recalibrate his internal green light.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 24.9m -11.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Bones Hyland 23.4m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Relentless energy metrics (+5.2 hustle) defined this performance, as he consistently beat opponents to 50/50 balls. Pairing that high-motor activity with much-improved shot selection resulted in a highly effective two-way shift. He provided a massive spark plug effect off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 23.4m -10.8
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.7

Aggressive downhill drives yielded a strong scoring bounce-back, but his net impact still slipped into the red. The steep drop-off from his raw box score to his final rating points to costly hidden errors, likely momentum-killing turnovers or poor transition defense. He gave back almost everything he created.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +61.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 22.6m -10.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Stellar rotational awareness anchored a highly positive defensive rating (+4.7), as he consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions. Unfortunately, his complete lack of scoring gravity turned the offense into a 4-on-5 struggle, ultimately dragging his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 18.1m -8.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Maximized a brief rotational window by attacking the rim with purpose and finishing through contact. Active hands on the perimeter (+2.1 defense) ensured he was a net positive during his short stint. A perfect example of low-minute, high-efficiency execution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 5.0m -2.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Flawless execution around the basket generated an outsized positive impact in limited action. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown, slipping screens perfectly to convert high-percentage looks. This quick burst of flawless efficiency showcased excellent situational readiness.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 5.0m -2.3
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Maintained solid defensive principles (+1.2) during a brief appearance to keep the team's momentum stable. He didn't force the issue offensively, taking what the defense gave him while focusing on containment. A quiet but fundamentally sound rotational bridge.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 4.5m -2.1
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0