GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
47
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+23.0

An absolute masterclass in drawing contact and manipulating defensive coverages fueled an astronomical net rating. He systematically dismantled the opponent's drop coverage, generating hyper-efficient looks every time he touched the paint. This relentless downhill pressure completely dictated the terms of engagement and drove a historically dominant impact score.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 21/25 (84.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 37.8%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +34.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +42.5
Avg player in 40.5m -19.5
Impact +23.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ajay Mitchell 35.9m
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

Gritty point-of-attack defense and timely loose-ball recoveries kept his impact metrics in the green despite a clunky shooting night. He struggled to finish through contact in the paint, leaving several easy scoring opportunities on the rim. Ultimately, his relentless motor compensated for the inefficiency of his offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 35.9m -17.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 29.8m
13
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Elite rim deterrence completely altered the geometry of the opponent's half-court offense, driving a massive defensive rating. He paired this interior intimidation with smart, decisive cuts that yielded high-percentage finishes. Controlling the restricted area on both ends of the floor cemented a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.0
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 29.8m -14.3
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 26.6m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

Settling for contested looks late in the shot clock tanked his offensive value and fueled opponent run-outs. A rare negative defensive rating suggests he was consistently beaten off the dribble by quicker matchups. The combination of bricked perimeter shots and perimeter containment issues severely damaged his net score.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 26.6m -12.8
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 22.0m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Relentless physicality and screen navigation generated superb secondary value, but his complete lack of offensive rhythm dragged down the overall score. Defenders routinely ignored him on the perimeter, which severely cramped the floor for the primary creators. His inability to punish defensive sagging negated his elite point-of-attack work.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.0m -10.6
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Sacrificing his body for charges and dominating the dirty work generated staggering defensive metrics. However, his total inability to convert wide-open pick-and-pop opportunities allowed the defense to completely abandon him in the half-court. This stark contrast between elite defensive positioning and offensive futility resulted in a perfectly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +9.7
Defense +9.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 31.6m -15.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
Alex Caruso 27.1m
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Extreme offensive passivity severely capped his ceiling, as he frequently passed up open looks to reset the offense. He still generated significant value through elite screen navigation and disruptive hands in the passing lanes. Ultimately, operating as a complete non-threat on the perimeter slightly outweighed his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +6.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 27.1m -13.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Opportunistic weak-side cutting and decisive perimeter shooting punished defensive rotations perfectly. He provided a crucial stabilizing presence on the wing, rarely forcing the issue while maintaining excellent defensive positioning. Maximizing his limited touches with high-IQ decisions resulted in a remarkably efficient two-way stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 17.4m -8.4
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 14.3m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Faltering from beyond the arc limited his ability to stretch the floor during crucial second-unit minutes. While he managed to salvage some value with decisive straight-line drives, his overall footprint remained muted. A lack of defensive playmaking ultimately kept his net score hovering just below the break-even point.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 14.3m -6.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 14.2m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Failing to establish his usual perimeter gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against primary drivers. He offered virtually no secondary resistance or loose-ball recovery, reflected in a near-zero hustle rating. This one-dimensional outing severely limited his effectiveness when the outside shot wasn't falling at an elite clip.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 14.2m -6.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Forcing up out-of-rhythm jumpers during a brief cameo derailed the offense and led to an immediate negative swing. He failed to inject his trademark energy into the lineup, logging an uncharacteristically low hustle score. This disjointed stint actively harmed the team's momentum before he was pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 5.7m -2.8
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Kevin Huerter 38.3m
17
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.8

A heavy diet of contested perimeter jumpers suppressed his overall efficiency and dragged down his net impact. Despite showing flashes of adequate positional defense, empty offensive trips during crucial late-game stretches proved costly. The sheer volume of missed outside looks ultimately outweighed his scoring totals.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 38.3m -18.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Daniss Jenkins 36.3m
15
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.6

Forcing the issue in the half-court led to a barrage of low-quality attempts that derailed offensive momentum. His defensive metrics remained surprisingly robust, but the sheer volume of empty possessions severely penalized his total score. Poor shot selection against set defenses ultimately defined this inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 36.3m -17.4
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Paul Reed 34.1m
21
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.8

Dominating the interior on both ends, his rim protection metrics spiked to a massive defensive peak. He capitalized on high-percentage looks around the basket to extend an incredibly efficient offensive streak. This two-way clinic effectively neutralized the opposing frontcourt and drove his elite overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +9.5
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 34.1m -16.6
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 3
S Javonte Green 30.3m
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.7

Elite perimeter spacing completely warped the defense, allowing him to vastly outperform his usual offensive baseline. His relentless activity on the margins kept possessions alive and generated massive secondary value. A career-night shooting from deep defined his overwhelming positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +6.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 30.3m -14.7
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 25.8m
8
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

Defensive versatility anchored his positive net impact, as he consistently disrupted passing lanes and locked down his primary assignments. While his offensive volume remained muted, his selective shot profile ensured he rarely wasted possessions. High-motor rotations in the half-court set the tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 25.8m -12.4
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
Caris LeVert 26.1m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Stagnant isolation sets and heavily contested mid-range pull-ups torpedoed his offensive efficiency. He offered very little resistance or secondary effort on the margins, reflected in an anemic hustle score. The offense consistently bogged down when he initiated the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 26.1m -12.6
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Continued struggles to find his rhythm resulted in rushed attempts and stalled offensive flow. While he salvaged some value through energetic closeouts and weak-side rotations, the offensive dead-ends were too frequent to overcome. His inability to convert in traffic severely hampered the team's transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 24.1m -11.5
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Tolu Smith 18.9m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Floating through his minutes without leaving a distinct physical imprint resulted in a negligible hustle rating. He struggled to establish deep post position, leading to a lack of offensive gravity that stalled the second unit. A failure to command defensive attention kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 18.9m -9.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Blistering perimeter execution provided a temporary offensive jolt, but defensive miscommunications quickly erased those gains. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, allowing opposing guards to consistently collapse the paint. The resulting defensive breakdowns ultimately overshadowed his hot shooting hand.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 18.3m -8.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Chaz Lanier 12.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Throwing up multiple ill-advised perimeter looks without connecting created a massive offensive sinkhole during his brief stint. He failed to leverage his gravity, allowing defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. This sheer lack of offensive production cratered his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 12.8m -6.2
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0