GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 37.6m
9
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-13.2

Severe scoring struggles dragged down his net rating, as he repeatedly clanked open looks from the perimeter. While his playmaking vision was a bright spot, his lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to play entirely for the pass. The massive drop-off from his usual offensive production crippled the starting unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 37.6m -15.9
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 33.5m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.5

Disastrous shot selection completely torpedoed his overall rating, as he forced contested jumpers early in the clock. His inability to convert from deep allowed the defense to pack the paint against his teammates. A stark regression from his recent scoring form highlighted a highly inefficient offensive night.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 33.5m -14.0
Impact -16.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
28
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.4

Sizzling perimeter shot-making fueled his positive impact, as he consistently drained contested looks to bail out broken possessions. He surged past his recent scoring averages by aggressively hunting his shot against drop coverage. Active closeouts on the defensive end added subtle value to a dominant offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +16.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 32.7m -13.8
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Kyle Filipowski 30.6m
25
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.0

A masterful display of inside-out offense drove a highly positive impact, continuing his streak of elite efficiency. He consistently punished mismatches in the post while pulling opposing bigs away from the rim with timely perimeter shooting. Solid rotational defense ensured his offensive gains weren't given right back.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +19.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 30.6m -12.9
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Oscar Tshiebwe 20.5m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Strong interior finishing and active rim protection were entirely undone by poor spacing and clogged driving lanes. While he maintained his streak of efficient shooting, his presence allowed the opposing center to camp in the paint defensively. The lack of perimeter gravity ultimately stalled the half-court offense when he was out there.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +5.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 20.5m -8.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.0

Relentless ball pressure and active hands in the passing lanes generated crucial hustle points that buoyed his overall rating. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by aggressively attacking the rim rather than settling for jumpers. His ability to push the pace in transition consistently caught the defense backpedaling.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 32.5m -13.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
John Konchar 29.2m
12
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.1

Elite positional rebounding and high-IQ connective passing drove a massive positive impact. He perfectly executed his role as a secondary playmaker, finding cutters while avoiding costly mistakes. Stifling perimeter defense against the opponent's lead guard further cemented a stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +16.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 29.2m -12.2
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Bez Mbeng 23.4m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Despite generating extra possessions through sheer hustle, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive miscommunications. He provided an unexpected scoring punch compared to his season averages, but gave it back by losing his man on backdoor cuts. The high-energy playstyle resulted in a volatile, ultimately detrimental stint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.4
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 23.4m -9.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 37.2m
37
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.9

Absolute perimeter dominance fueled a massive positive net rating, highlighted by a barrage of contested pull-up jumpers that broke the defense's back. He consistently exploited drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, dictating the tempo of the entire game. Active hands on the perimeter also generated defensive stops that ignited fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 12/26 (46.2%)
3PT 10/16 (62.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +28.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 37.2m -15.7
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 35.5m
19
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.1

High-value perimeter execution drove a strong positive impact, as he repeatedly punished defensive rotations with timely spacing and excellent shot selection. His defensive versatility allowed Denver to switch seamlessly on the wing, stifling opponent drives. Maintained his recent efficient rhythm to anchor the secondary unit.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +18.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 35.5m -14.9
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 33.1m
15
pts
17
reb
12
ast
Impact
-4.3

An uncharacteristically muted offensive footprint resulted in a negative overall impact, as he passed up several high-leverage scoring opportunities. While his defensive positioning remained elite, the offense stagnated during stretches where he operated purely as a facilitator. Opponents successfully crowded his passing lanes, neutralizing his usual playmaking gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 33.1m -13.8
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Christian Braun 30.7m
18
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Capitalized on aggressive straight-line drives to generate a significant offensive boost, blowing past his recent scoring averages. His relentless rim pressure forced multiple defensive collapses, creating easy looks in transition. A slight dip in defensive containment was easily masked by his high-octane offensive output.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +19.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 30.7m -12.9
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Gordon 28.0m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Offensive struggles severely weighed down his overall rating, characterized by forced attempts in the paint and poor spacing. Despite a sharp drop in production compared to his recent average, he salvaged some value as a backline defensive anchor. His inability to finish through contact ultimately derailed several half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 28.0m -11.8
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Bruce Brown 27.2m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Elite point-of-attack defense drove his positive rating, as he completely neutralized his primary matchup on the perimeter. His continued streak of highly efficient finishing around the basket provided a reliable release valve for the offense. Timely cuts and relentless ball pressure defined his highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +9.5
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 27.2m -11.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Bully-ball tactics in the paint generated steady offensive value during his brief time on the court. He established deep post position early and often, forcing the defense to collapse and commit fouls. Maintained a physical presence that stabilized the interior rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +11.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 13.2m -5.6
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Limited minutes and a steep drop in offensive involvement led to a slightly negative overall footprint. He struggled to find any rhythm as a floor spacer, failing to capitalize on the few catch-and-shoot opportunities he was given. The lack of shot volume rendered him mostly invisible during his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 10.4m -4.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A quiet offensive night kept his impact hovering near neutral, as he failed to match his recent aggressive scoring pace. He settled for contested looks early in the shot clock rather than attacking closeouts. Defensively, he held his own but couldn't generate the disruptive plays needed to swing momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 9.4m -4.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

A completely passive offensive showing tanked his net impact, as he failed to generate any rim pressure or perimeter gravity. His inability to get open off screens allowed the defense to ignore him and clog the paint. Defensive lapses in transition further compounded a highly ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense -3.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -5.4
Avg player in 8.6m -3.6
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
KJ Simpson 1.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A brief, erratic appearance resulted in a negative rating due to rushed perimeter attempts and missed defensive assignments. He was quickly targeted in isolation during his short time on the floor. Failed to provide the steadying presence expected from a depth guard.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.2
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 1.7m -0.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Barely registered on the game's radar during his brief run, contributing nothing to the offensive flow. A missed rotation on the defensive end accounted for the slight negative dip in his rating. Served purely as an emergency innings-eater.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.7m -0.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Garbage time minutes yielded a near-zero impact across all metrics. He simply occupied space on the floor without factoring into any meaningful actions. The game flow completely bypassed him during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.7m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Managed to squeeze out a slight positive impact by converting a quick opportunity around the rim. Stayed disciplined defensively during his fleeting time on the court. Provided exactly what was needed in a highly limited depth role.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 1.6m -0.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0