GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-18.4

A brutal shooting night completely torpedoed his impact, as he repeatedly forced up contested looks in the paint. Despite generating impressive hustle metrics through loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. His inability to finish at the rim stalled out multiple critical runs.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 40.4m -22.8
Impact -18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Cody Williams 36.6m
26
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Relentless attacking of the midrange and paint drove a highly productive scoring night, breaking out of a recent efficiency slump. He paired the offensive aggression with active hands on defense, generating deflections that sparked fast breaks. The sheer volume of successful drives outweighed a few forced attempts in traffic.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 36.6m -20.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 35.0m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.4

Strong scoring efficiency was entirely undone by defensive lapses and likely a high volume of costly turnovers that sparked opponent fast breaks. He bled points on the other end by losing his man off the ball, negating the value of his perimeter shot-making. The raw production looked great, but the hidden mistakes dragged his true impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 35.0m -19.8
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

Provided vital secondary scoring by capitalizing on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the perimeter. He held his own defensively against quicker wings, using his frame to cut off driving angles. A balanced, mistake-free performance that kept the offensive machinery humming.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.4
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 26.1m -14.8
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 24.0m
20
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.7

A lethal combination of floor-spacing and interior rebounding fueled a massive positive swing. He consistently punished drop coverages by stepping out for clean looks, extending a streak of highly efficient performances. His defensive positioning was impeccable, walling off the paint without committing unnecessary fouls.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 24.0m -13.6
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
John Konchar 30.0m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Flawless execution on spot-up opportunities was negated by defensive struggles and an inability to stay in front of his assignments. He was frequently targeted in isolation, bleeding points that erased his tidy offensive contributions. A lack of overall aggression left him floating on the perimeter for long stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 30.0m -16.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bez Mbeng 28.8m
5
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.5

Offensive invisibility severely hampered his overall rating, as he struggled to initiate sets or create advantages. While he generated some value through active perimeter defense and hustle plays, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to roam freely. The inability to pressure the rim made him a liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 28.8m -16.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Dominated the dirty work in limited minutes, securing extra possessions through sheer physical force on the glass. He finished his looks around the rim with authority, continuing a streak of highly efficient interior play. His sturdy post defense prevented opponents from establishing deep position.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 19.1m -10.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 38.6m
13
pts
6
reb
14
ast
Impact
-3.1

Elite playmaking volume was overshadowed by the negative weight of perimeter misses and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. While he successfully orchestrated the offense in the half-court, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag and clog passing lanes. His defensive metrics were surprisingly robust, but couldn't offset the offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 38.6m -21.8
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
34
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.8

A heavy surge in offensive aggression paid off beautifully, generating high-leverage buckets when the offense stagnated to break a recent efficiency slump. He balanced his scoring bursts with engaged perimeter defense, disrupting passing lanes to fuel transition opportunities. The sheer volume of successful drives outweighed any defensive lapses, stabilizing the primary unit.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 35.8m -20.3
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keon Ellis 31.9m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Defensive tenacity and efficient shot selection kept him in the positive across most underlying metrics, but hidden costs dragged him slightly into the red. Poorly timed fouls or defensive breakdowns off the ball likely offset his point-of-attack pressure. His ability to hound opposing guards remains a vital tool despite the marginal negative score.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 31.9m -18.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 29.6m
34
pts
17
reb
3
ast
Impact
+23.4

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive impact score, highlighted by a relentless streak of high-percentage finishes. He anchored the interior on both ends, combining rim protection with elite roll-man execution to completely warp the opponent's defensive scheme. Continuing a trend of hyper-efficient scoring, his sheer physical presence dictated the terms of the matchup.

Shooting
FG 15/21 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +30.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +40.2
Avg player in 29.6m -16.8
Impact +23.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 28.1m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Severe perimeter shooting struggles tanked his overall value, as a barrage of missed looks from deep destroyed the team's half-court spacing. Despite the offensive zeroes, he managed to salvage some utility through active rotations and solid hustle metrics. The inability to stretch the floor ultimately allowed defenders to pack the paint and stifle drives.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 28.1m -15.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

A passive offensive outing severely limited his influence, as he struggled to find gaps in the defense or create separation off the bounce. He stayed engaged on the less glamorous end, applying steady ball pressure to generate a respectable defensive rating. Ultimately, the lack of downhill penetration rendered his minutes largely neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 21.2m -12.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Poor spacing and an inability to convert around the basket cratered his overall effectiveness, snapping a streak of reliable interior finishing. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding value despite showing some resistance at the rim. The lack of offensive punch made it impossible to justify his defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 18.4m -10.4
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Minimal offensive involvement and a lack of defensive playmaking resulted in a quiet, negative stint. He failed to leave a footprint on the game's tempo, blending into the background during his rotation minutes. A few missed rotations likely compounded the subtle drag on the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 15.2m -8.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Maintained a steady rhythm with smart shot selection, continuing a recent trend of highly efficient scoring from the perimeter. He navigated screens well on defense, staying attached to his assignments and preventing easy dribble penetration. His controlled pace helped stabilize the second unit during crucial transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 11.8m -6.6
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Capitalized on a brief window of opportunity by finishing his looks efficiently around the basket. His length disrupted a few key actions on defense, providing a quick spark of energy off the bench. A solid, low-mistake shift that perfectly executed his specialized role as an interior finisher.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 9.3m -5.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0