GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 40.9m
37
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.9

Explosive perimeter shot-making carried his impact, though defensive lapses (-0.7 Def) prevented his score from matching his massive box-score production. He broke down the primary point-of-attack defense at will, burying pull-up threes in transition.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.7
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 40.9m -21.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Lauri Markkanen 39.8m
33
pts
16
reb
5
ast
Impact
+24.4

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, driven by suffocating help defense (+13.8 Def) and relentless board work (+6.8 Hustle). He completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt while punishing mismatches on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +24.5
Hustle +6.8
Defense +13.8
Raw total +45.1
Avg player in 39.8m -20.7
Impact +24.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 37.5m
25
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.6

Sustained his hyper-efficient scoring streak while adding massive value through physical screens and loose-ball recoveries (+5.8 Hustle). His ability to read the floor from the high post kept the offense humming seamlessly.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 37.5m -19.8
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 24.3m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

Poor shot selection derailed his offensive rhythm, and he compounded the issue with missed defensive assignments (-2.3 Def). He repeatedly settled for contested midrange pull-ups instead of attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense -2.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 24.3m -12.7
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.2

Impact plummeted as his usual scoring punch vanished, leaving him as a net-negative when forced to create late in the clock. Opposing guards exploited his lateral quickness, turning his minutes into a defensive liability.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 21.6m -11.3
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.5

Generated immense value through sheer effort, diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes (+5.7 Hustle). His aggressive downhill drives collapsed the defense, perfectly balancing his playmaking and scoring.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 31.2m -16.3
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Kept his head above water by crashing the glass and making timely cuts (+3.7 Hustle) despite a dip in scoring volume. His length bothered shooters on the perimeter, providing just enough disruption to stay positive.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 22.3m -11.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Found success spotting up in the corners, but his overall impact was muted by poor weakside defensive awareness (-0.9 Def). He capitalized on open looks generated by teammates, yet struggled to contain dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 18.4m -9.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

A complete offensive zero who clogged the spacing and stalled half-court sets. His inability to keep pace in transition allowed the opponent to capitalize on cross-matches repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -49.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 15.4m -8.2
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

Rushed decisions and poor spacing cratered his offensive impact during his brief stint on the floor. He failed to navigate screens effectively, allowing his matchup to dictate the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 13.5m -7.2
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 41.8m
42
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.7

Massive offensive usage and defensive anchoring (+5.2 Def) carried his overall impact. Midrange isolation scoring overwhelmed the defense, though a few forced perimeter shots slightly capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 15/20 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 37.1%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.8m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 41.8m -21.8
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S P.J. Washington 39.2m
25
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Despite a massive scoring spike, his overall impact flatlined due to defensive breakdowns in rotation. He feasted on mismatch post-ups, but gave back value by bleeding points in transition.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 39.2m -20.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ryan Nembhard 38.1m
14
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
-10.3

The massive jump in offensive production was completely undone by defensive bleeding and live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. While he orchestrated the offense well in the first half, his inability to navigate ball screens on the other end cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 38.1m -19.9
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Naji Marshall 36.3m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Defensive versatility (+4.4 Def) and aggressive drives were negated by empty possessions and likely costly turnovers. He locked down the perimeter effectively, yet his offensive execution stalled out during critical half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 36.3m -19.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 12.9m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Impact suffered from a severe drop in offensive involvement, completely disappearing from the pick-and-roll game. He managed to salvage some value with solid rim deterrence (+2.2 Def), but couldn't stay on the floor long enough to establish a rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 12.9m -6.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Max Christie 28.3m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Found ways to contribute without scoring by generating crucial extra possessions (+4.3 Hustle). His relentless perimeter ball pressure disrupted the opponent's timing, proving that his value isn't tied to his jumper.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 28.3m -14.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Solid weakside rotations (+3.1 Def) kept his defensive impact positive, but offensive limitations hindered the unit's spacing. He set bruising screens to free up shooters, yet his inability to finish through contact resulted in empty trips.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 23.6m -12.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite spacing and gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, while his veteran positioning (+3.4 Def) shut down baseline drives. He hit timely catch-and-shoot daggers that stalled opponent momentum, even if his overall volume was modest.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 20.9m -11.0
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Moussa Cisse 13.5m
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.5

Anchored the interior during a crucial second-quarter stretch, altering multiple shots at the rim (+3.5 Def). His high-energy rim runs and offensive rebounding created a distinct physical advantage inside.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 13.5m -7.0
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaden Hardy 10.5m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.0

A complete offensive disappearing act was compounded by getting routinely hunted in isolation (-2.4 Def). He forced bad shots early in the shot clock, allowing the opponent to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense -3.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.4
Raw total -5.5
Avg player in 10.5m -5.5
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2