GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
29
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

A heavy reliance on isolation play bogged down the offensive flow, leading to stagnant possessions despite his individual scoring brilliance. He repeatedly surrendered straight-line drives on defense, forcing rotations that left perimeter shooters wide open. The high scoring volume simply couldn't offset the defensive breakdowns and a costly string of late-game defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 36.6m -19.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jalen Williams 32.7m
17
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.3

Phenomenal weak-side defensive rotations and relentless hustle completely overshadowed a clunky shooting performance. He generated massive value by blowing up dribble hand-offs and securing crucial 50/50 balls in traffic. A game-defining sequence of diving for a loose ball and saving it for a fast break perfectly encapsulated his gritty impact.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 45.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +6.1
Defense +10.2
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 32.7m -17.1
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 30.5m
17
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Foul trouble severely compromised his defensive aggression, forcing him to play passively at the rim for long stretches. While he managed to draw fouls and score efficiently when engaged, his inability to contest shots without fouling bled points in the paint. Getting bullied off his spots by heavier bigs in the first quarter ultimately neutralized his positive offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 30.5m -15.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 21.6m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

Reckless closeouts and unnecessary reaching fouls gifted the opponent easy points at the charity stripe. His offensive impact flatlined due to forcing heavily contested drives into a set defense rather than moving the ball. A frustrating pattern of biting on pump fakes created a significant drag on the starting unit's defensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 21.6m -11.3
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.3

Elite positional rebounding and bone-crushing screens unlocked the half-court offense and generated countless second-chance opportunities. He dominated the interior matchups, sealing off defenders early to create easy passing angles for the guards. A masterclass in verticality at the rim deterred multiple drives during a pivotal fourth-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 20.2m -10.6
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Hesitancy to pull the trigger on open catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed the defense to pack the paint. He struggled to contain quicker guards in isolation, frequently getting beat off the dribble and requiring help. A lack of assertiveness in the half-court offense relegated him to a spectator role for long stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 26.9m -14.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

Methodical pace control and pristine decision-making stabilized the second unit during chaotic transition sequences. He weaponized his gravity on drives to spray accurate kick-out passes, generating high-quality looks for the wings. Tenacious on-ball pressure against the opposing backup guards, including two forced backcourt violations, amplified his positive floor impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 24.3m -12.6
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Alex Caruso 24.1m
11
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.2

Absolute terror at the point of attack, blowing up pick-and-rolls and forcing ball-handlers into panicked decisions. His elite screen navigation and timely digs into the post disrupted the opponent's primary actions all night. Hitting a momentum-shifting transition three perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +5.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 24.1m -12.5
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

An absolute void on the offensive end, missing badly on forced perimeter looks and killing the team's spacing. He failed to make an impact in transition, often jogging back and giving up easy cross-match opportunities. The inability to generate any rim pressure made him a severe liability during his second-quarter rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 12.0m -6.2
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Drawing timely charges and executing flawless defensive rotations anchored the interior defense during his brief stint. He operated as a vital offensive hub at the top of the key, keeping the ball moving and punishing sagging defenders. His high-IQ positioning consistently put him in the right spot to clean up defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 11.2m -5.9
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 36.6m
22
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.1

Relentless rim pressure compromised the opposing defense, creating a cascade of high-quality looks for both himself and his teammates. His ability to dictate the tempo in transition forced multiple cross-matches that the offense easily exploited. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his impact, highlighted by back-to-back steals that sparked a crucial run.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 36.6m -19.1
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 33.7m
22
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

Hidden defensive lapses and poor transition awareness bled points, entirely negating the value of his aggressive downhill drives. He frequently lost his man on back-door cuts, exposing the backline to easy layups. A tendency to over-dribble into traffic during clutch minutes disrupted the team's offensive flow and tanked his net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 33.7m -17.5
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Devin Vassell 32.2m
23
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.5

Sizzling perimeter execution drove a massive offensive surge, capitalizing on defensive rotations to knock down timely triples. A decisive third-quarter shooting barrage ultimately cemented his positive overall value. The scoring efficiency masked a relatively quiet defensive presence, though his floor spacing alone warped the opponent's scheme.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 32.2m -16.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 27.1m
6
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.5

Brutal perimeter variance torpedoed his overall impact, as he repeatedly bricked wide-open catch-and-shoot looks from the corners. The inability to punish collapsing defenses ultimately dragged down his net rating despite disciplined closeouts. A pattern of hesitating on the catch allowed defenders to recover and stifle the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 27.1m -14.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luke Kornet 24.4m
2
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

High-level rim deterrence and active screen-setting generated immense value without requiring offensive touches. He consistently altered floaters in drop coverage, turning potential layups into contested misses. This unglamorous dirty work, highlighted by a crucial string of defensive stops in the second quarter, perfectly anchored the interior.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 24.4m -12.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Total offensive invisibility allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint. He passed up several open looks, stalling the half-court offense and forcing teammates into late-clock bailouts. A glaring pattern of floating on the perimeter without cutting made him a severe liability on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 26.6m -13.9
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Dylan Harper 24.9m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Forced isolation attempts against set defenses derailed offensive momentum and led to a dismal shooting night. He consistently settled for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock instead of moving the ball. A disastrous third-quarter stretch of forced drives completely cratered his overall impact despite sturdy point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 24.9m -13.0
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
22
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Generational length completely short-circuited the opponent's interior game plan, forcing a steady diet of low-percentage perimeter heaves. He drew massive defensive attention on every roll to the rim, opening up the floor even when he didn't receive the pass. A dominant stretch of rim protection in the second quarter effectively broke the opposing offense's spirit.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 20.6m -10.9
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
3
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Rushed decisions and a lack of offensive aggression characterized a disjointed stint on the floor. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, occasionally surrendering open driving lanes to quicker guards. A failure to establish physical dominance on the glass during the first half further muted his typical energetic contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 14.0m -7.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1