GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
12
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.0

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers torpedoed his efficiency and dragged his overall rating into the red. He failed to generate any secondary value through loose ball recoveries or weak-side cuts, making him a one-dimensional liability when his shot wasn't falling. Opponents successfully ran him off the line, forcing him into uncomfortable pull-ups that stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 26.4m -12.8
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 25.6m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Despite converting his interior looks at a high clip, a lack of dominant rim deterrence kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage against high pick-and-rolls, allowing guards to turn the corner too easily. His offensive execution as a roll man was steady, but it wasn't enough to offset the defensive leakage.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 25.6m -12.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 25.6m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Surgical precision in his shot selection and disruptive perimeter defense translated to a highly dominant two-way showing. He consistently attacked closeouts with poise, never forcing the issue while punishing defensive rotations. A crucial third-quarter stretch saw him completely lock down his primary matchup while initiating the offense flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 25.6m -12.3
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 21.8m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.9

An unexpected barrage from beyond the arc paired with relentless motor plays resulted in a massive positive swing for his team. He completely shattered his recent slump by confidently stepping into trailing threes during transition. His elite hustle metrics reflect a dominant stretch of keeping possessions alive via tip-outs and diving for loose balls.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 21.8m -10.5
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Terance Mann 20.6m
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.4

Smothering point-of-attack defense and opportunistic shot-making fueled a breakout performance that vastly exceeded his recent baseline. He capitalized on broken plays by aggressively cutting to the basket, punishing a sleeping defense. His ability to navigate screens and harass ball-handlers set a gritty tone for the entire second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 20.6m -10.0
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 23.6m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Brutal perimeter inefficiency completely neutralized his otherwise stout defensive contributions, sinking his overall value. He repeatedly settled for contested outside looks rather than utilizing his size inside, resulting in a string of empty possessions. While his rim-protection metrics remained solid, his offensive cold spell was too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +52.9
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 23.6m -11.5
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Drake Powell 23.3m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

A noticeable uptick in shooting confidence wasn't quite enough to push his net rating into positive territory. He struggled to contain dribble penetration on the perimeter, which subtly undermined his efficient offensive output. His performance was defined by timely corner threes that kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +68.5
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 23.3m -11.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Length and anticipation on the defensive end were the primary drivers of his positive net rating. He expertly navigated passing lanes to disrupt offensive sets, creating transition opportunities that he finished with authority. Even on lower usage, his selective perimeter shooting kept the floor perfectly spaced.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +65.3
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 21.6m -10.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.2

An absolute flamethrower performance from deep completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme and drove a massive positive rating. He supplemented his sudden scoring explosion with relentless defensive pressure and high-motor closeouts. This out-of-nowhere two-way masterclass single-handedly swung the momentum during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +65.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 18.1m -8.8
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.2

Total domination of the painted area anchored an astronomical defensive rating that defined his entire stint. He operated as an immovable object in the post, altering countless shots and securing the glass with sheer physicality. His bruising screens and quick-decision passing out of the short roll perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +43.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +10.5
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 16.9m -8.2
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

A completely passive offensive approach rendered him a non-factor and dragged down his short-stint impact. He passed up open looks and deferred too quickly, allowing the defense to easily overload the strong side. His inability to pressure the rim fundamentally stalled the second unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +78.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 9.4m -4.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Maximizing a brief rotation opportunity, he delivered a quick jolt of highly efficient two-way play. He attacked closeouts decisively and maintained excellent defensive positioning, ensuring no drop-off when the starters rested. His sharp execution in limited action proved vital in bridging the gap between quarters.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +85.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 7.3m -3.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
5
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-13.8

Disastrous shot selection and a complete perimeter freeze-out cratered his overall value, marking a steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear. He essentially shot his team out of possessions by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. Surprisingly, his defensive engagement remained elite, preventing his net impact from falling even further.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.0%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense -13.3
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 29.7m -14.4
Impact -13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 6
S Gary Trent Jr. 28.9m
20
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

A sudden surge in perimeter shot-making broke him out of a recent slump, driving a heavily offensive-slanted impact profile. Despite the scoring punch, his lack of secondary playmaking limited his overall ceiling. His ability to punish drop coverage from the wings defined his offensive stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 28.9m -13.8
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 27.7m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Active interior rotation and off-ball movement fueled a strong hustle rating that kept his overall impact positive. While his perimeter stroke abandoned him entirely, he compensated by attacking the paint efficiently. His defensive engagement during the middle quarters stabilized the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 27.7m -13.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 23.9m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Passive offensive involvement and an inability to stretch the floor dragged his overall impact into the red. He generated some value through sheer physical hustle, but his rim protection metrics uncharacteristically flatlined. Opposing bigs successfully pulled him away from the paint, neutralizing his primary defensive utility.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 23.9m -11.6
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 22.5m
11
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.2

Settling for low-quality looks from beyond the arc stalled his offensive rhythm and resulted in a stark regression from his recent high-scoring form. While he managed decent floor mapping to generate assists, the empty possessions from deep dragged down his net score. His inability to turn the corner against primary defenders forced too many late-clock bailouts.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -57.8
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 22.5m -10.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jericho Sims 30.4m
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Operating strictly as a low-usage lob threat kept his efficiency high but severely limited his offensive gravity. Strong positional defense bolstered his underlying metrics, yet his reluctance to demand the ball allowed the defense to sag off him. His performance was defined by a steady but ultimately unimpactful screen-setting presence.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -47.5
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 30.4m -14.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cole Anthony 20.2m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.3

A complete offensive vanishing act tanked his rating, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt while providing virtually no secondary hustle. He routinely disrupted the team's spacing by hesitating on catch-and-shoot opportunities. This passive approach against second-unit guards rendered him a massive net negative during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -66.1
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -8.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total -7.6
Avg player in 20.2m -9.7
Impact -17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Bobby Portis 16.5m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.6

High-energy minutes off the bench drove a stellar net rating, fueled by aggressive closeouts and timely perimeter shot-making. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his physical presence in the mid-post consistently bent the defense. He swung the momentum during a crucial second-quarter stretch by dominating the 50/50 balls.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 16.5m -8.1
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Errant perimeter chucking severely damaged his offensive value, as he repeatedly clanked open looks from the corners. This poor shot selection derailed the second unit's flow and allowed opponents to leak out in transition. Despite decent rotational awareness on defense, his inability to punish the zone proved costly.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -54.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 15.0m -7.3
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 9.4m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Failing to register a single point after a string of productive outings resulted in a steep negative impact during his brief stint. He looked hesitant attacking closeouts, leading to disjointed offensive possessions. His minutes were defined by a lack of physicality that allowed opposing forwards to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -78.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 9.4m -4.6
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Purely a cardio performance, his near-total lack of statistical production dragged his net rating into the gutter. He floated on the perimeter without cutting or screening effectively, essentially forcing his team to play four-on-five offensively. This passive approach has become a concerning pattern over his last few appearances.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -78.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 9.4m -4.6
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Brief but effective floor time yielded a slight positive impact thanks to flawless shot execution. He capitalized immediately on his sole perimeter look, continuing a quiet streak of high-efficiency spot-up play. His stint was too short to alter the game's momentum, but he executed his spacing role perfectly.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 6.4m -3.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0