GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 43.1m
35
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.0

Blistering offensive production (+25.2 Box) carried his net impact, completely overshadowing a relatively quiet defensive showing. He hunted favorable matchups on switches, punishing drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers down the stretch. Timely hustle plays in transition helped solidify his positive influence on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 14/15 (93.3%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.1m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 43.1m -22.7
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cameron Johnson 43.0m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

A severe lack of defensive resistance and low-impact hustle plays resulted in a deeply negative overall score, despite highly efficient shooting. He was consistently beaten off the dribble by quicker wings, forcing the defense into constant rotation. His inability to win 50/50 balls or secure long rebounds allowed opponents to dominate the possession battle.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.0m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 43.0m -22.6
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nikola Jokić 42.4m
39
pts
15
reb
10
ast
Impact
+18.5

Absolute mastery of the game's geometry resulted in a monstrous impact score, driven by elite shot-making and flawless offensive orchestration. He systematically dismantled double-teams from the elbows, generating high-quality looks for himself and others. Surprisingly stout defensive positioning (+7.9 Def) in drop coverage completely deterred drives to the rim.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 39.1%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.4m
Offense +28.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.9
Raw total +40.8
Avg player in 42.4m -22.3
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Spencer Jones 40.9m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Despite off-the-charts hustle metrics (+8.0) and solid defensive positioning, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to offensive stagnation during his minutes. He generated massive energy with second-chance deflections, but defensive breakdowns behind him negated those extra possessions. A few costly missed rotations in the fourth quarter ultimately dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +8.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 40.9m -21.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
S Peyton Watson 5.8m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Highly efficient scoring in a micro-burst of playing time drove a surprisingly strong positive impact. He aggressively attacked closeouts during a quick second-quarter stint, instantly shifting the momentum. Solid weak-side rim protection ensured his brief minutes were a net positive for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Inefficient volume shooting actively harmed the offense, dragging his net impact into the red despite commendable defensive effort. He short-circuited multiple possessions by forcing contested early-clock triples against set defenses. While his perimeter containment (+4.3 Def) was solid, the empty offensive trips proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 40.0m -21.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 27.0m
2
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.8

Elite defensive metrics (+7.5 Def) and relentless rebounding salvaged a positive impact on a night where his scoring completely vanished. He embraced the role of a defensive stopper, completely neutralizing his primary assignment on the perimeter. High-motor plays on the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that didn't show up in his own point total.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 27.0m -14.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Glaring defensive liabilities (-2.4 Def) in space ruined an otherwise highly efficient offensive shift. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage, generating wide-open looks at the rim. A complete lack of hustle plays (+0.6) meant he offered no secondary value when he wasn't directly scoring.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.4
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 13.7m -7.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Zeke Nnaji 8.9m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Scraped out a slightly positive impact through sheer energy and rotational discipline during his brief time on the floor. He provided a physical presence on the interior, setting hard screens that freed up the guards. His willingness to contest shots at the rim deterred a couple of key drives in the first half.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 8.9m -4.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 44.1m
25
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.2

Strong defensive metrics (+9.9 Def) drove his positive net impact, compensating for a lower offensive usage than his baseline. His length disrupted passing lanes during a critical third-quarter run, translating deflections into transition opportunities. Efficient shot selection kept his overall influence highly stable despite the reduced scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.1m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.9
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 44.1m -23.2
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 5
S Amen Thompson 43.5m
14
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor finishing around the rim severely dragged down his net impact, as empty possessions fueled opponent fast breaks. While he generated raw counting stats, his inability to convert in traffic crippled the half-court offense. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the rim protection.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.5m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 43.5m -22.8
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

Despite solid perimeter efficiency, his overall impact cratered due to defensive lapses and an inability to secure contested rebounds in traffic. Opponents ruthlessly exploited his positioning in the pick-and-roll, negating his offensive contributions. A lack of high-leverage hustle plays left his net rating firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.4m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 43.4m -22.8
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 42.5m
33
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+12.1

A massive offensive explosion (+25.0 Box) fueled a dominant overall performance, heavily punishing single coverage in the post. His playmaking out of the high post dismantled the opponent's defensive rotations all night. Consistent effort on the glass and timely weak-side blocks (+5.2 Def) ensured his scoring translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.5m
Offense +25.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 42.5m -22.3
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 30
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Josh Okogie 27.7m
16
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

An unexpected scoring surge provided a massive lift off the bench, though his overall impact was muted by defensive breakdowns in isolation. He capitalized on broken plays and transition leak-outs to generate highly efficient offense. His relentless ball-pressure in the second quarter defined his two-way energy.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 27.7m -14.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Brutal shot selection and a high volume of missed jumpers tanked his offensive value, erasing the goodwill from his stellar defensive metrics (+5.2 Def). He repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock, stalling offensive momentum. However, his point-of-attack defense against opposing guards prevented his overall impact from completely bottoming out.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 31.6m -16.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Steven Adams 15.5m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Complete invisibility on the glass and a negative defensive footprint rendered his limited minutes highly detrimental. Opposing bigs easily established deep post position against him during his brief first-half stint. A lack of mobility in drop coverage allowed guards to walk into uncontested midrange jumpers.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 15.5m -8.1
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Defensive liabilities (-1.5 Def) overshadowed a perfectly efficient, albeit low-volume, offensive shift. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, giving up crucial penetration that collapsed the defense. A lack of physical resistance at the point of attack made it difficult to justify an extended run.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg -46.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 10.2m -5.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a slightly negative impact, primarily due to a lack of offensive involvement. He provided adequate rim deterrence (+2.1 Def) during the non-Jokic minutes but failed to secure defensive rebounds to close out possessions. His inability to command gravity in the dunker spot allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -43.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 6.5m -3.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0