GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 38.7m
27
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

Relentless downhill attacking and elite finishing in traffic spearheaded a highly productive +8.8 outing. He consistently broke down the primary defender, generating high-percentage looks at the rim while maintaining strong positional discipline on defense.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 22.3%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +34.9
Avg player in 38.7m -26.1
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.4m
20
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

An unexpected barrage from beyond the arc stretched the opposing frontcourt, completely changing the geometry of the offense. Combined with elite switchability and rim deterrence, his two-way versatility easily absorbed the hit from his struggles inside the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +7.5
Defense +12.5
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 36.4m -24.5
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jalen Johnson 35.1m
12
pts
10
reb
12
ast
Impact
-5.6

Forcing contested looks in the mid-range severely damaged his offensive efficiency, overshadowing his playmaking contributions. The sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed his solid weak-side defensive rotations, dragging his overall score into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 35.1m -23.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-14.5

A disastrous shooting night completely tanked his value, as he repeatedly short-circuited possessions with heavily contested floaters and drives. The sheer number of empty trips fueled opponent transition opportunities, resulting in a team-worst -14.5 impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/18 (16.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 34.1m -23.0
Impact -14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

A massive surge in perimeter confidence fueled a breakout +7.8 performance, punishing late rotations with decisive catch-and-shoot execution. His length also proved disruptive on the defensive end, helping to stifle secondary actions on the wing.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 21.4m -14.4
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, lethal spot-up shooting provided a crucial spacing valve for the primary creators. He played within the flow of the offense perfectly, ensuring a solid positive net rating despite relatively quiet defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 25.9m -17.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 20.9m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Extreme passivity on the perimeter negated his primary skill set, allowing defenders to aggressively stunt away from him. The lack of shot volume effectively stalled the half-court offense, pulling his overall impact firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 20.9m -14.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 13.9m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Opportunistic cuts to the basket and soft touch around the rim allowed him to maximize a brief window of playing time. He wasn't asked to anchor the defense, but highly efficient offensive execution kept his overall footprint slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 13.9m -9.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

An inability to establish any offensive rhythm or spacing gravity made him a liability during his rotation minutes. While he offered some minor resistance in the post, the stagnant offense under his watch resulted in a quick -5.4 deficit.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 10.6m -7.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

A disjointed three-minute stint featured rushed decision-making and immediate defensive breakdowns. He was quickly targeted by the opposing backcourt, bleeding points rapidly before being pulled from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 3.0m -2.1
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 38.6m
26
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

High-volume gunning masked significant defensive lapses, resulting in a deceptive -5.5 net impact despite the scoring surge. Forced isolation possessions bled into poor transition defense on the other end, giving back everything he generated offensively.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 38.6m -26.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Quentin Grimes 38.6m
14
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.6

A severe drop-off in shot selection cratered his overall rating to -10.6, as forced attempts early in the clock stalled offensive momentum. While his point-of-attack defense remained solid, the inability to convert inside the arc severely handicapped half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 38.6m -26.1
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 33.4m
35
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.9

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a massive +17.9 overall impact, as he consistently punished drop coverage from deep. His engagement extended well beyond scoring, with high-level hustle and defensive metrics indicating active passing lane disruption and hard closeouts.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +25.0
Hustle +7.7
Defense +7.7
Raw total +40.4
Avg player in 33.4m -22.5
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Joel Embiid 30.2m
22
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.4

Despite struggling with his touch around the nail, overwhelming paint intimidation drove a stellar +12.1 defensive rating. He completely altered the opponent's rim-attack geometry, ensuring his overall impact remained highly positive even on a rough shooting night.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +12.1
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 30.2m -20.4
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Dominick Barlow 27.2m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient interior play, flawless rim-running maximized his offensive touches to drive a positive rating. A robust +7.8 defensive score highlights excellent weak-side rim protection that anchored the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 27.2m -18.4
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

Dominant glass-cleaning and physical screen-setting generated a highly effective +8.7 impact without needing offensive touches. His massive frame deterred interior drives, anchoring a defensive unit that thrived during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +9.5
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 19.8m -13.3
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Jared McCain 17.8m
0
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.9

An absolute offensive zero in this rotation, his inability to connect on perimeter looks allowed defenders to freely pack the paint. He salvaged some value through active defensive rotations, but the complete lack of scoring gravity tanked his overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 17.8m -12.0
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Generating trips to the charity stripe compensated for a lack of field goal attempts, keeping his offensive utility afloat. Consistent hustle on 50/50 balls and disciplined closeouts ensured he remained a net positive in a low-usage role.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 17.4m -11.7
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Rushed perimeter attempts derailed his brief stint on the floor, failing to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities. He remained somewhat disciplined in his defensive assignments, preventing his overall impact from completely bottoming out.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 8.8m -5.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 8.2m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Sluggish point-of-attack defense and a complete lack of offensive initiation resulted in a steep -7.7 rating during his brief shift. The veteran was frequently targeted in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points without offering any playmaking resistance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 8.2m -5.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1