GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Drake Powell 28.3m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Settled far too often for contested perimeter looks, resulting in a slew of empty possessions that fueled opponent run-outs. His defensive rotations were generally sound, but the sheer volume of bricked triples dragged his net impact into the red. A failure to mix in drives to the basket made him entirely one-dimensional and easy to guard.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 28.3m -13.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ziaire Williams 24.3m
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Strong defensive metrics and solid hustle were undermined by a high volume of missed mid-range jumpers that killed offensive flow. He consistently worked hard to navigate screens and contest shots, but his inability to finish through contact negated that effort. The juxtaposition of elite defensive activity and disjointed offensive execution defined his night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 24.3m -11.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 22.6m
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.4

Defensive lapses and an inability to contain dribble penetration severely punished his time on the court. Even though he found moderate success scoring inside the arc, his failure to generate defensive stops or secure loose balls bled points on the other end. The performance was characterized by a porous point-of-attack presence that collapsed the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 22.6m -10.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Nic Claxton 21.6m
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

A shocking lack of interior aggression led to a massive drop in production and a heavily negative overall impact. He was consistently out-muscled for positioning and failed to make himself available as a lob threat, neutralizing his usual vertical gravity. The inability to anchor the paint defensively compounded his passive offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 21.6m -9.9
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 19.9m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

A disastrous shooting performance from the perimeter completely tanked his overall value and allowed his defender to roam freely. While he provided decent rim deterrence, the offensive spacing issues he created bogged down the entire half-court attack. His insistence on taking contested deep balls rather than attacking closeouts proved costly.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -60.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 19.9m -9.1
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Continued a stellar stretch of basketball by pairing hyper-efficient shot selection with elite energy plays. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by cutting decisively, while his active hands consistently extended possessions. This outing was defined by his perfect execution of a two-way role player, maximizing every touch without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 27.2m -12.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Josh Minott 22.6m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Generated massive value through relentless defensive pressure and high-motor plays, completely overshadowing a dreadful shooting night from deep. His ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest at the rim created a chaotic environment that heavily favored his team. The defensive havoc he wreaked turned what could have been a negative outing into a highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 22.6m -10.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Ben Saraf 18.6m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Struggled to impact the game positively due to poor shot selection and a general lack of physical engagement. He floated around the perimeter without applying rim pressure, leading to low-quality attempts late in the shot clock. Minor contributions in hustle categories weren't enough to offset the offensive stagnation he caused.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -61.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 18.6m -8.6
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Made his mark primarily through gritty defensive efforts and diving for loose balls rather than his usual scoring punch. He recognized his shot wasn't falling and immediately pivoted to being a defensive pest, disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. This adaptability allowed him to remain a net positive despite a sharp decline in offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 14.6m -6.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Salvaged a rough offensive outing entirely through suffocating perimeter defense and excellent rotational awareness. Despite his scoring production plummeting, he made life miserable for opposing guards by fighting through screens and cutting off driving lanes. His commitment to the less glamorous side of the floor kept his overall impact firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 13.7m -6.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Failed to leave a meaningful imprint on the game during his minutes, suffering from a severe lack of offensive assertiveness. His inability to command the ball or attack closeouts allowed the defense to effectively ignore him. A few minor hustle plays couldn't compensate for the spacing issues caused by his passive approach.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 9.1m -4.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Put up empty minutes characterized by missed perimeter looks and subpar defensive resistance. He failed to generate any offensive gravity, allowing his defender to freely double-team other threats. The complete absence of playmaking or secondary hustle stats resulted in a decisively negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 9.1m -4.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence by executing basic defensive rotations and avoiding costly mistakes. He capitalized on his limited touches with decisive action, ensuring the offense didn't stall when the ball swung his way. It was a fundamentally sound, low-usage stint that kept the team afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 8.3m -3.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 29.0m
25
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.4

Lethal shot-making from beyond the arc drove a massive offensive rating, punishing drop coverages and late closeouts alike. He paired this perimeter gravity with active hands in passing lanes to create a compounding positive effect. The combination of elite shot selection and engaged weak-side defense made him the primary engine for the team's success.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +51.2
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 29.0m -13.3
Impact +17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 27.5m
14
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
-6.7

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers torpedoed his overall efficiency and dragged down his net impact. While he successfully orchestrated the offense, the sheer volume of empty possessions from deep prevented the team from building sustained momentum. His lack of secondary hustle plays meant he couldn't claw back the value lost through poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 27.5m -12.8
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 27.2m
10
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient interior play by strictly adhering to his role as a rim-runner and lob threat. His positive impact stemmed directly from securing extra possessions and maintaining vertical spacing without demanding post touches. A steady diet of high-percentage looks at the basket anchored his highly effective minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +49.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 27.2m -12.6
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 24.7m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite defensive metrics and relentless hustle plays kept his overall impact near neutral despite a brutal shooting slump. His inability to connect from deep stalled offensive momentum, forcing him to rely on off-ball activity to stay on the floor. The significant drop in scoring volume was offset entirely by his high-motor closeouts and rotational awareness.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 24.7m -11.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 23.7m
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+26.2

An absolutely dominant two-way showing where his physical point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. He generated massive value through high-percentage interior finishes rather than settling for perimeter looks. This performance was defined by his ability to string together stops and immediately transition them into high-value fast break opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +58.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +4.9
Defense +12.2
Raw total +37.2
Avg player in 23.7m -11.0
Impact +26.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
Sion James 22.5m
0
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.3

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, failing to register a single productive scoring action while passing up open looks. His modest contributions in loose-ball recoveries were vastly outweighed by the spacing issues his offensive passivity created. The total lack of rim pressure allowed defenders to freely sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.1%
Net Rtg +38.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.0
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 22.5m -10.5
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Coby White 21.1m
16
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.4

Errant perimeter shooting severely capped his offensive ceiling, as he repeatedly forced looks early in the shot clock. Although he found some success driving the lane, the missed triples acted as empty trips that fueled opponent transition chances. A lack of defensive playmaking left him unable to recover the negative equity generated by his shot profile.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 21.1m -9.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Broke out of a recent scoring funk by capitalizing on spot-up opportunities and punishing defensive rotations. His impact stayed in the green due to excellent shot discipline, taking only what the defense conceded rather than forcing action off the bounce. Sturdy positional defense against larger forwards ensured his efficient offensive output wasn't given back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 19.9m -9.2
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Operated as a flawless offensive safety valve, converting nearly all of his touches around the basket to maintain his elite finishing trend. His positive net rating was anchored by disciplined drop coverage that deterred drives without fouling. By simply executing his screen-and-roll duties perfectly, he provided a highly stable two-way presence.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 17.9m -8.2
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Green 13.5m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Extreme offensive invisibility resulted in a steep negative impact despite decent defensive metrics. He spent the majority of his stint floating on the perimeter without stressing the defense, effectively turning the offense into a four-on-five situation. A few solid closeouts couldn't mask the overarching damage of his failure to initiate or finish plays.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 13.5m -6.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Mann 6.0m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Struggled to find his rhythm during a brief stint, clanking several contested pull-ups that stalled second-unit momentum. He managed to hover near a neutral impact solely by staying attached to his man on the perimeter and avoiding defensive breakdowns. Ultimately, the lack of offensive punch negated his steady positional defense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 6.0m -2.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made the most of a microscopic rotation window by immediately converting his lone offensive opportunity. His veteran positioning kept the defensive shell intact during his brief run. It was a perfectly neutral, mistake-free shift that maintained the status quo.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 3.6m -1.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Logged mere seconds of garbage time without registering any meaningful actions. His impact score reflects a purely cardio-based stint where he neither helped nor hurt the defensive structure.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.6m -0.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely saw the floor in a stint defined entirely by a lack of touches or defensive events. The slightly negative score stems from being on the wrong end of a quick opponent run during his brief appearance. He essentially served as a warm body to close out the quarter.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.6m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0