GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 36.9m
25
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-3.6

Constant defensive targeting by bigger wings erased the value of his elite mid-range shot creation. Opponents relentlessly forced him into switch actions, bleeding points on one end as fast as he generated them on the other.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.9
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 36.9m -19.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 36.2m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Smothering point-of-attack defense was completely overshadowed by offensive passivity and stalled possessions. He frequently passed up driving angles, allowing the defense to reset and bogging down the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 36.2m -18.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Hart 34.5m
26
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.6

Uncharacteristic perimeter shot-making punished defenders who dared to sag off him, completely shifting the offensive geometry. Combined with his trademark transition pushes, this elite efficiency resulted in a highly dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.9%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 34.5m -18.0
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 30.9m
10
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.9

Extreme offensive passivity severely limited his overall influence, as he rarely looked to attack despite perfect shooting splits. A lack of customary defensive disruption allowed his primary assignments to operate with unusual comfort.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 30.9m -15.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.4

Disciplined drop coverage and active hands in the passing lanes drove a surprisingly stout defensive rating. He capitalized on mismatches inside rather than settling for outside looks, anchoring a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 30.4m -13.5
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Tenacious on-ball pressure couldn't make up for a string of forced, low-quality jumpers that killed offensive momentum. The inability to orchestrate clean sets in the half-court ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 19.3m -9.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Brick-laying from the perimeter and soft closeouts on the other end created a massive negative swing during his minutes. He failed to provide the necessary floor-spacing, allowing the defense to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 18.9m -10.3
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.3

Absolute dominance in the painted area suffocated opposing drivers, generating a massive defensive spike. His relentless activity on the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.0
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 18.8m -10.5
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

A complete lack of off-ball movement and defensive intensity neutralized his capable scoring bursts. He operated too heavily in isolation, stalling ball movement and allowing the defense to easily reset.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 14.2m -6.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jayson Tatum 39.8m
24
pts
13
reb
8
ast
Impact
-11.8

Massive volume of empty possessions dragged his net rating into the red, defined by settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint. Excellent rotational defense and active rebounding partially salvaged what was otherwise a highly inefficient scoring night.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 39.8m -26.2
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Derrick White 37.5m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

A complete inability to connect from deep cratered his offensive value, stalling out multiple half-court sets. While his perimeter defense remained characteristically disruptive, the sheer volume of wasted shooting possessions proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 37.5m -20.6
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 31.5m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.1

A sharp drop-off in perimeter efficiency tanked his overall impact, as he failed to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities. Despite holding his own defensively, his inability to stretch the floor at his usual rate stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 31.5m -16.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 24.2m
10
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.2

Dominant interior positioning drove a massive positive impact, converting high-percentage looks around the rim with ruthless consistency. His physical screen-setting and rim deterrence anchored the second unit's success during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 24.2m -12.3
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 17.4m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Defensive lapses at the point of attack outweighed his capable spot-up shooting, resulting in a net-negative stint. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, exposing his footwork on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense -2.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 17.4m -9.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.8

Relentless dribble penetration and shot creation kept the offense afloat, though his overall impact was muted by defensive limitations. Opposing guards frequently shot over his contests, neutralizing the value of his scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 35.5m -20.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite floor-spacing completely broke the opponent's defensive shell, punishing late rotations with near-perfect perimeter execution. This unexpected scoring eruption forced constant closeouts, opening up driving lanes for the rest of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 30.4m -10.4
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing ball-handlers to walk into comfortable rhythm jumpers, dragging his overall rating down. His reliable post touches couldn't generate enough gravity to offset the defensive bleeding on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 23.8m -10.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2