GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S RJ Barrett 31.3m
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

A clunky perimeter shooting night suppressed his usual scoring gravity and bogged down half-court possessions. He managed to salvage a neutral overall rating by aggressively attacking passing lanes and providing sturdy wing defense. Despite the offensive struggles, his sheer effort level prevented his impact from slipping into the negative.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +9.2
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 31.3m -17.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 29.8m
25
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.0

Bullying smaller defenders in the paint unlocked a dominant, highly efficient scoring surge that doubled his usual output. He paired this offensive masterclass with suffocating weak-side defense to completely control the game's tempo. This two-way brilliance culminated in a massive, game-defining net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +26.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 29.8m -16.6
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Brandon Ingram 29.3m
23
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Surgical precision from the midrange and beyond the arc elevated his offensive profile well above his recent baseline. He consistently punished mismatched defenders in isolation to keep the scoreboard moving. Paired with engaged on-ball defense, his highly efficient shot profile drove a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 29.3m -16.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jakob Poeltl 25.7m
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.4

Anchoring the paint with absolute authority generated a staggering defensive rating that stifled the opponent's interior attack. He complemented this rim protection with relentless activity on the offensive glass and high-percentage finishing around the basket. His physical dominance in the pick-and-roll dictated the flow of his highly positive minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +10.0
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 25.7m -14.3
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Deferred to teammates offensively, taking a backseat in the scoring column to focus on orchestrating the offense. His real value came from hounding ball-handlers at the point of attack, generating a strong defensive score. This unselfish, defense-first approach yielded a quietly positive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 17.6m -9.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.8

Settling exclusively for perimeter looks made his offensive profile entirely one-dimensional. While the box score valued his floor spacing, his inability to pressure the rim or generate defensive stops allowed opponents to capitalize on the other end. This lack of two-way versatility ultimately dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 26.6m -14.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 23.6m
3
pts
1
reb
11
ast
Impact
-8.7

High-volume playmaking masked underlying issues, as his inability to pose a scoring threat allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. While he orchestrated the offense effectively, the team bled points during his shifts due to poor transition defense. The stark contrast between his passing metrics and a deeply negative net rating highlights the hidden costs of his floor time.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +56.8
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 23.6m -13.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Provided a solid stretch-big element by knocking down pick-and-pop jumpers to keep the defense honest. He held his own in drop coverage, yet the team struggled to string together stops during his rotational minutes. The subtle bleed of points during his shifts resulted in a marginally negative final score.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +47.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 22.3m -12.4
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.8

Swapped his usual offensive production for a gritty, blue-collar defensive masterclass. He blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions and consistently won loose balls to generate extra possessions. This high-motor dirty work drove a stellar positive impact despite a sharp decline in his scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +38.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +13.6
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 19.9m -11.2
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Logged a couple of cardio minutes at the end of the rotation without registering a single shot attempt. He failed to make any measurable impact on the glass or in the hustle categories. The lack of tangible production caused his rating to slip slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.8m -1.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Clanked a pair of rushed attempts during his late-game shift to tank his offensive metrics. Fortunately, he compensated by locking down his man on the perimeter, generating a surprisingly high defensive score for such a short stint. That brief burst of defensive intensity kept his final rating slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 2.8m -1.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Spent his brief time on the floor executing basic defensive assignments without demanding the ball. He avoided making mistakes but also failed to generate any positive momentum. This purely passive stint resulted in a negligible dip in his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.8m -1.6
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
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Instantly injected offense during a brief late-game appearance by aggressively hunting his shot. He capitalized on relaxed defensive coverages to score efficiently around the basket. This quick burst of micro-efficiency secured a solid positive rating for his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 2.8m -1.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Found an immediate rhythm in limited action by decisively attacking a closeout for a quick bucket. He didn't have enough runway to influence the defensive end, but his offensive decisiveness was a plus. The hyper-efficient cameo left him with a modest positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 2.8m -1.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 36.5m
7
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.9

Brick after brick from the perimeter cratered his offensive value, as he settled for outside shots instead of attacking the paint. His defensive anchoring and relentless activity on the glass kept the game competitive on one end. However, the sheer volume of wasted possessions ultimately resulted in a heavily negative net score.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.2%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 36.5m -20.4
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 32.7m
24
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a massive offensive spike that far exceeded his recent averages. He punished late closeouts effectively to generate high-value looks and stretch the floor. Despite the scoring outburst, his overall net impact remained modest due to quieter defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.9%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -38.6
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense -2.8
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 32.7m -18.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tyler Herro 30.0m
14
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.5

Uncharacteristic passivity limited his usual offensive footprint, taking significantly fewer shots than his recent baseline. While his touches were highly efficient when he did attack, the lack of scoring volume muted his overall influence. A quiet defensive showing left his final net rating slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -6.1
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 30.0m -16.8
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 26.2m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-20.0

A sudden freeze in shooting efficiency derailed his offensive rhythm, snapping a five-game streak of highly accurate performances. He forced contested looks against set defenses, dragging down his overall value. Even solid hustle metrics couldn't salvage a deeply negative total impact.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense -3.6
Raw total -5.4
Avg player in 26.2m -14.6
Impact -20.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Davion Mitchell 23.3m
9
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.2

Clanking multiple open looks from beyond the arc stalled out the second-unit offense. He compensated with high-motor hustle plays to keep possessions alive, but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. The combination of poor shot selection and defensive lapses drove his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -52.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 23.3m -13.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Forcing the issue against set defenses resulted in a slew of clanked jumpers and a steep drop from his recent scoring tear. He provided strong resistance on the perimeter to boost his defensive metrics. Still, the offensive inefficiency was too severe to prevent a deep dive into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.8
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 26.4m -14.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Trigger-happy shot selection against tight coverage torpedoed his offensive efficiency. Without his usual scoring gravity, the half-court offense frequently bogged down during his shifts. Minimal contributions in the hustle categories further depressed his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -33.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.8m -13.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kel'el Ware 17.2m
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite rim protection and positional discipline anchored a highly effective defensive stint. He didn't need to score to dominate his minutes, completely altering opponent shot trajectories in the paint. This defensive masterclass easily offset a quiet night on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.3
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 17.2m -9.6
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Total offensive invisibility plagued his minutes, failing to register a single point while missing all his perimeter looks. He salvaged some value by executing defensive rotations perfectly and disrupting passing lanes. Ultimately, playing four-on-five offensively kept his impact score underwater.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.7
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 12.8m -7.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.1

An absolute explosion of garbage-time production maximized every second he was on the floor. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages to score with perfect efficiency while adding immediate value on the other end. This hyper-productive micro-stint resulted in an absurdly high net rating for the minutes played.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A brief garbage-time cameo yielded nothing but a missed perimeter jumper. He failed to register any defensive or hustle statistics during the short stint. The empty minutes slightly dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Made the most of a late-game insertion by strictly focusing on interior positioning. He deterred drives effectively to post a positive defensive score without attempting a shot. This disciplined approach yielded a slightly positive net impact in minimal action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Showcased high energy in a fleeting appearance, crashing the glass to generate positive hustle metrics. However, a blown assignment on defense and an empty offensive trip negated that effort. The raw lack of production in limited time resulted in a negative score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.8m -1.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1