GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 33.5m
51
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+37.3

Put together an absolute masterpiece of offensive dominance and suffocating defense, driving a staggering net impact. Systematically dismantling every coverage thrown his way, he combined elite shot creation with devastating perimeter efficiency. A massive defensive rating proves he was just as terrifying as a weak-side disruptor as he was a primary scorer.

Shooting
FG 19/30 (63.3%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.1%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +45.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +56.1
Avg player in 33.5m -18.8
Impact +37.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Max Christie 28.5m
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Punished closeouts effectively with confident perimeter shooting, but bled value on the defensive end during transition sequences. Individual scoring punch was overshadowed by poor team-wide execution while he was on the floor. Struggling to contain dribble penetration led directly to compromised defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 28.5m -16.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 23.7m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Dragged down the offense with abysmal shot selection and an inability to finish around the rim. While defensive effort and physicality remained strong, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions killed Dallas's momentum. Opponents actively sagged off him, severely bogging down the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.7m -13.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ryan Nembhard 22.4m
2
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.0

Crippled the offense with a complete inability to knock down open shots, allowing defenders to pack the paint. Poor shooting form bled into playmaking, as passing lanes vanished without the threat of his scoring. The massive negative impact reflects how thoroughly his defender ignored him to blow up primary actions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 22.4m -12.6
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Daniel Gafford 19.9m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Sacrificed usual scoring volume to focus entirely on setting brutal screens and protecting the paint. Elite hustle metrics highlight a willingness to do the dirty work, keeping possessions alive with relentless energy. The interior defense was anchored beautifully, even if offensive touches were drastically reduced.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 19.9m -11.2
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
23
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.2

Sparked a massive two-way surge by relentlessly attacking the basket and blowing up passing lanes on defense. Elite hustle metrics showcase a player who routinely beat opponents to loose balls and generated crucial transition opportunities. Backup guards were completely overwhelmed by his downhill aggression.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 25.6m -14.4
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

Operated as an offensive zero, completely refusing to look at the rim and crippling the team's spacing. While generating extra possessions through sheer hustle and verticality, playing 4-on-5 on offense was too much for the unit to overcome. Energy plays simply couldn't mask the structural damage caused by a lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 24.5m -13.8
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Provided pure floor-spacing value through high-volume perimeter shooting, but offered absolutely nothing in terms of hustle or playmaking. This one-dimensional approach meant that when he wasn't actively hitting shots, his overall impact flatlined. Defenders were forced to stay glued to him, but a lack of defensive resistance negated the offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 22.4m -12.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.1

Faded into obscurity during his minutes, failing to attempt quality shots or impact the game defensively. Passivity allowed the opposing defense to comfortably double other threats without penalty. The steep negative impact reflects a player who was targeted on switches while providing zero offensive counter-punch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.9%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 19.3m -10.8
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.1

Looked completely out of sync, forcing contested jumpers and failing to create separation against younger defenders. An inability to generate rim pressure stalled the offense, while sluggish defensive rotations compounded the bleeding. The disastrous net rating stems directly from empty possessions and a glaring lack of burst.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense -6.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Raw total -7.3
Avg player in 12.2m -6.8
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Rushed offensive execution during a brief, ineffective stint that featured poor shot selection. Continuing a brutal shooting slump, he failed to find the bottom of the net and offered no secondary skills to compensate. The coaching staff quickly pulled him after bleeding points in transition.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 5.9m -3.4
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 2.1m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by confidently converting his only offensive opportunity. While the sample size is too small for meaningful defensive takeaways, decisive action injected a quick burst of positive momentum. He executed his limited role perfectly before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
28
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.9

Dominated the interior matchup through sheer offensive efficiency and excellent floor spacing from the center position. Continuing a streak of highly accurate shooting, he punished drop coverages by stepping out and hitting timely perimeter shots. Solid positional defense further anchored a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 35.9m -20.1
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 33.4m
27
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.4

Delivered a masterclass in two-way wing play, suffocating ball handlers at the point of attack to drive a stellar defensive rating. Impeccable shot selection allowed him to capitalize on defensive breakdowns and score efficiently from all three levels. This performance showcased an ability to completely dictate the flow of the game on both ends.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 79.6%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 33.4m -18.7
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 31.2m
19
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+5.7

Orchestrated the offense brilliantly while maintaining signature point-of-attack defensive pressure. High-quality shot creation for teammates drove his positive impact, perfectly complementing an aggressive scoring mentality that broke out of a recent slump. Relentless screen navigation disrupted the opponent's primary actions all night.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 31.2m -17.4
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Paolo Banchero 31.1m
10
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-17.9

Impact cratered due to severe offensive stagnation and likely a high volume of costly live-ball errors that fueled opponent runs. Struggling to find his rhythm against set defenses led to a massive drop in scoring volume compared to his recent stretch. The negative defensive metrics highlight being consistently a step slow on closeouts throughout the night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.7
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 31.1m -17.5
Impact -17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Franz Wagner 17.1m
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Generated massive two-way value in limited minutes by combining elite defensive positioning with relentless hustle. Finishing efficiently inside completely offset a cold night from the perimeter. This high-energy burst set the tone for Orlando's frontcourt before he exited early.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +46.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 17.1m -9.6
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided excellent tertiary scoring and high-level hustle plays, though overall impact was muted by playing during negative lineup runs. Spot-up opportunities were capitalized on perfectly, punishing late rotations with decisive perimeter shooting. Despite strong individual metrics, defensive breakdowns elsewhere on the floor dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 28.8m -16.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Jamal Cain 21.4m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Kept the offense flowing with low-mistake, highly efficient execution in a complementary role. Continuing a trend of smart shot selection, he only took what the defense gave him while contributing solid weak-side help. Positive hustle metrics reflect a willingness to do the dirty work that sustains secondary units.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 21.4m -12.0
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 19.6m
5
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.4

Brought trademark ball pressure and solid defensive rotations, but offensive limitations kept his overall impact slightly in the red. Struggling to break down defenders off the dribble led to stagnant possessions when initiating the offense. Defensive intensity partially salvaged a rough playmaking shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 19.6m -10.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 12.2m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Anchored the backup unit with steady rim protection and solid screen-setting despite being completely uninvolved as a scorer. Value came entirely from positional discipline and altering shots in the paint. The lack of offensive gravity limited his ceiling, but he survived his rotation minutes effectively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 12.2m -6.8
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely registered an impact during a brief stint on the floor, failing to generate any hustle or defensive value. While converting his only look, an inability to influence the game off the ball resulted in a slightly negative net shift. He operated strictly as a decoy floor spacer without altering the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 5.2m -2.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Logged empty minutes during a negligible rotation stint, offering zero resistance or energy plays. This brief appearance was marred by a lack of involvement and a quick negative swing in the score. He failed to capitalize on the limited opportunity to show defensive engagement.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.1m -1.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 2.1m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Made no tangible imprint on the game during a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation. A lack of scoring threat and minimal defensive impact resulted in a neutral-to-negative stint. He essentially just occupied space on the floor while the clock ran down.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0