GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 34.5m
22
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.3

Methodical isolation scoring and elite spatial awareness carved up the opposing wing defenders all evening. He consistently leveraged his size advantage in the mid-post, hitting unblockable turnaround jumpers that stabilized the offense during a chaotic second quarter. His two-way impact was further amplified by crisp weak-side help rotations that blew up multiple lob attempts.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 34.5m -19.0
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Anthony Davis 32.7m
24
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+22.0

Utterly dominated the painted area through sheer physical imposition and elite rim deterrence. His astronomical defensive and hustle metrics were fueled by a relentless sequence in the third quarter where he contested four consecutive shots at the basket and secured the loose balls. Even with a few forced interior shots, his ability to single-handedly erase defensive breakdowns made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +9.8
Defense +13.7
Raw total +40.1
Avg player in 32.7m -18.1
Impact +22.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 44.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
S Naji Marshall 32.2m
17
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Thrived as a slasher, aggressively attacking closeouts to generate high-percentage looks at the rim. While his offensive efficiency was superb, his overall net score was dragged down by a tendency to over-help on defense, leaving shooters open on the weak side. A crucial stretch of downhill drives in the fourth quarter highlighted his value as a secondary attacking option.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 32.2m -17.7
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 24.5m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Defensive switchability provided immense value, but his erratic shot selection on the other end completely tanked his overall impact. He repeatedly stalled offensive momentum by jacking up contested, early-clock triples instead of moving the ball. This tendency to settle for low-quality perimeter looks allowed the defense to easily leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 24.5m -13.4
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ryan Nembhard 20.8m
0
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-16.0

Completely derailed the offensive flow by continually driving into traffic and failing to execute basic kick-out reads. His inability to knock down wide-open perimeter looks allowed defenders to blatantly sag off and clog the driving lanes for everyone else. The staggering negative impact was a direct result of empty possessions and stalled half-court execution whenever he initiated the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total -4.6
Avg player in 20.8m -11.4
Impact -16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Max Christie 33.1m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Provided excellent point-of-attack harassment against opposing ball-handlers, navigating screens with textbook footwork to generate defensive value. However, his overall impact washed out to neutral due to reckless decision-making when attacking closeouts, leading to out-of-control drives and lost possessions. Hitting a barrage of catch-and-shoot threes kept him playable, but the offensive mistakes negated his defensive brilliance.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.4
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 33.1m -18.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.2

Struggled to manage the game tempo, frequently getting sped up by trap coverages and coughing up live-ball turnovers. While he picked his spots well as a scorer, his inability to organize the half-court offense during a sloppy second-quarter stint bled points the other way. The defensive metrics look passable, but his poor offensive orchestration was a heavy anchor on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 26.5m -14.5
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Floor-spacing gravity remains elite, but his heavy reliance on contested, off-balance jumpers dragged down the unit's offensive efficiency. He was routinely targeted in space on the defensive end, struggling to flip his hips and stay attached to quicker guards on the perimeter. A lack of secondary playmaking or rebounding meant his value lived and died entirely on difficult shot-making.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 20.5m -11.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Injected pure energy into the second unit through relentless rim-running and creating extra possessions via tip-outs. His mastery of the vertical spacing game forced the defense to constantly collapse, opening up the perimeter for trailing shooters. This high-motor performance in the pick-and-roll maximized his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 15.3m -8.5
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 34.6m
14
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Anchored the interior with exceptional drop-coverage execution, completely deterring drives during the second half. His massive defensive impact stemmed from altering shots at the rim and securing contested defensive rebounds to end possessions. Despite some clunky touch around the basket offensively, his defensive gravity dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +10.5
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 34.6m -19.0
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
34
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Elite perimeter shot-making carried his overall impact, masking a lack of defensive resistance on the wing. His ability to hit contested catch-and-shoot looks during a crucial third-quarter stretch kept the offense afloat. The high-volume scoring output offset minimal contributions in the hustle and disruption categories.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 34.5m -19.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Noah Clowney 32.9m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.2

Impact plummeted due to poor shot selection, specifically forcing heavily contested above-the-break jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities. While his weak-side rim rotations generated solid defensive value, the wasted offensive possessions negated that effort entirely. He consistently settled for perimeter looks rather than exploiting mismatches inside.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 32.9m -18.1
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Terance Mann 27.2m
12
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided a massive spark as a secondary creator, leveraging well-timed baseline cuts to punish ball-watching defenders. His point-of-attack pressure yielded strong defensive metrics, though a few late-clock rotational lapses kept his overall net impact grounded. The aggressive downhill mentality was a welcome shift from his recent passive stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 27.2m -15.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 18.2m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

Offensive rhythm completely flatlined due to rushed mechanics and an inability to separate from primary defenders. He bled value on the offensive end by bricking open spot-up looks, which allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint. A few high-effort closeouts on the perimeter prevented his overall impact score from sinking even further.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 18.2m -10.0
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Danny Wolf 26.9m
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Stretched the floor flawlessly as a trailing big, punishing late closeouts with perfect perimeter execution. His ability to drag the opposing center out of the paint opened up crucial driving lanes for the guards all night. Paired with disciplined verticality at the rim, this floor-spacing dynamic drove a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 26.9m -14.8
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Tremendous energy on 50/50 balls and offensive glass crashes generated immense hustle value, but his complete disappearance from the offensive game plan tanked his overall score. He passed up multiple open driving lanes, settling instead for contested perimeter looks late in the shot clock. This passive offensive pattern allowed his defender to freely roam and disrupt passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +6.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 25.3m -14.1
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications to drill a flurry of catch-and-shoot daggers from the corner. While his floor-spacing provided a clear offensive boost, a complete lack of secondary effort plays or loose-ball recoveries limited his total impact. He served strictly as a spot-up weapon, offering zero resistance when isolated on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 15.5m -8.5
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Dominated the interior physicality during his brief rotation, utilizing wide screens to free up ball-handlers and carve out deep post position. His impact was driven entirely by brute-force rebounding and setting bone-crushing picks that compromised the opposing drop coverage. A pair of careless moving screens slightly dented an otherwise highly efficient stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.5
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 13.4m -7.4
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, consistently getting beat off the dribble at the point of attack. His inability to stay in front of his man forced emergency rotations that led to easy corner threes for the opposition. Offensively, he was a non-factor, short-arming his only attempts in traffic.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 8.8m -4.8
Impact -6.7
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
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Barely saw the floor, logging a quick stint that was marred by immediate rotational confusion on defense. He gave up a costly backdoor cut almost immediately after checking in, quickly earning a trip back to the bench. There simply wasn't enough court time to establish any positive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 2.7m -1.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1