GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Leonard Miller 39.1m
15
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.4

Relentless energy on the offensive glass created crucial extra possessions and drove his positive impact. He thrived in the dunker spot, converting dump-off passes into easy points at the rim. High-level defensive versatility allowed him to seamlessly switch onto guards on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 39.1m -14.1
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Lachlan Olbrich 31.6m
6
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.6

Elite hustle metrics and aggressive screen-setting kept him involved, but poor spacing from missed perimeter shots hurt the offense. He clogged the driving lanes by failing to draw his defender out of the paint. Strong interior defense nearly balanced out the offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 31.6m -16.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 26.7m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

A disastrous performance from beyond the arc completely cratered his offensive value. He stubbornly continued to force contested threes instead of attacking closeouts, killing the team's momentum. Excellent weak-side shot blocking salvaged his defensive metrics, but the bricklaying was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 0/9 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.2%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 26.7m -10.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Collin Sexton 26.7m
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to find his typical scoring rhythm, often driving into traffic and forcing wild layup attempts. He missed several critical reads in the pick-and-roll, resulting in wasted possessions and disrupted flow. A high defensive work rate couldn't mask the inefficient offensive decision-making.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 26.7m -15.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tre Jones 26.0m
23
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.0

Masterful control of the game's tempo and elite shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive outing. He consistently punished drop coverage with deadly floaters and timely perimeter strikes. The offensive brilliance easily overshadowed a few blown assignments on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 26.0m -5.6
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Passive offensive tendencies and a barrage of clanked jumpers severely damaged the team's spacing. He failed to establish any physical presence in the paint, settling for low-percentage looks late in the shot clock. Defensive rotations were often a half-step slow, compounding a miserable overall performance.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 27.4m -9.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Settling for poor perimeter shots dragged down his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to sag into the paint. Struggling to finish through contact at the rim led to empty trips and transition run-outs for the opponent. Although his defensive positioning was adequate, the sheer volume of wasted possessions heavily outweighed his contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.5
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 27.3m -5.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Frequent positional mistakes on defense allowed easy back-door cuts and uncontested layups. He hesitated on offensive rotations, bogging down the ball movement in the half-court. Despite decent shooting efficiency, his lack of spatial awareness hurt the overall team flow.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 16.8m -12.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Mac McClung 10.0m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to easily break the paint and collapse the defense. While he knocked down a couple of spot-up jumpers, his inability to stay in front of his man gave the value right back. The lack of defensive resistance defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 10.0m -8.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.5

Completely overwhelmed by the opposing backcourt's physicality, resulting in disrupted offensive sets. He was targeted repeatedly in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on the defensive end. A total lack of offensive aggression rendered him a massive liability during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -4.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.4
Raw total -6.2
Avg player in 8.5m -8.3
Impact -14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 26.6m
14
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.8

Playmaking and defensive rebounding were solid, but poor perimeter shot selection dragged down his overall efficiency. He settled for contested long-range jumpers instead of attacking the paint, letting the defense off the hook. A high defensive rating couldn't fully rescue the negative offensive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 26.6m -10.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Anchored the interior with disciplined drop coverage and efficient finishing around the rim. He capitalized on pick-and-roll mismatches to generate high-percentage looks inside the restricted area. Consistent hustle on the glass stabilized the frontcourt rotation and drove his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 25.4m -14.0
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Franz Wagner 22.9m
25
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.9

Masterful navigation of screens allowed him to generate high-quality looks from the perimeter. He consistently exploited defensive rotations on the wing, punishing late closeouts with decisive drives. This elite shot selection drove a massive positive impact score, completely overshadowing a quiet defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 22.9m -8.7
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 20.1m
12
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.2

Overreliance on the three-ball resulted in a volatile offensive profile that ultimately hurt the team's spacing. Failing to pressure the rim allowed defenders to crowd the perimeter and jump passing lanes. Furthermore, negative defensive metrics suggest he was frequently beaten off the dribble by quicker guards at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +33.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 20.1m -8.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 17.3m
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.9

A severe lack of offensive rhythm tanked his overall value, as he struggled to find separation off the dribble. Passing up open catch-and-shoot opportunities stalled the half-court offense and allowed the defense to reset. While his defensive effort remained passable, the complete absence of rim pressure created a crater too deep to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 17.3m -11.1
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 24.9m
20
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.5

Incredible finishing efficiency around the basket drove a massive positive impact score. He perfectly timed his baseline cuts to exploit sleeping defenders and generate uncontested looks at the rim. High-level defensive engagement further amplified his breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +12.1
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 24.9m -16.0
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Jevon Carter 21.5m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Despite efficient shooting, his inability to orchestrate the offense led to stagnant half-court sets. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, occasionally giving up driving lanes to the primary ball handler. The lack of playmaking volume ultimately pushed his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 21.5m -8.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.9

Errant perimeter shooting completely neutralized his offensive gravity. He was a non-factor in spot-up situations, allowing his defender to freely roam and double team the ball handler. Strong weak-side defensive rotations kept him on the floor, but the offensive zeroes were costly.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 21.4m -18.8
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Atrocious finishing in the paint severely limited his offensive ceiling, but relentless point-of-attack defense kept his overall impact above water. Disrupting passing lanes and generating deflections sparked crucial transition opportunities. Ultimately, this high-revving defensive motor compensated for his glaring shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 18.6m -12.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 16.6m
15
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+24.5

Utterly dominated the painted area with elite offensive rebounding and put-back efficiency. He bullied opposing bigs on the block, creating second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's defensive spirit. A flawless rim-protection performance sealed a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.4
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 16.6m -7.6
Impact +24.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Noah Penda 7.5m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.3

Completely invisible on the offensive end during his brief stint, failing to generate any rim pressure. He was a step slow on defensive closeouts, allowing clean looks from the perimeter. The lack of aggression made him a net negative in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 7.5m -10.4
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Provided an instant offensive jolt with aggressive, high-efficiency drives to the cup. He capitalized on sleepy transition defense to score quick buckets before the opponent could set their half-court shell. Active hands on the perimeter generated key stops during his short burst of playing time.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 6.0m -10.7
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Maximized his limited minutes by setting bruising screens and rolling hard to the rim. He maintained excellent verticality in the paint, deterring drivers without committing fouls. A disciplined, mistake-free stint bolstered the second unit's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 6.0m -8.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

Looked completely out of sync with the offensive flow, forcing contested passes that stalled possessions. He offered zero resistance at the point of attack, allowing opposing guards to easily penetrate the paint. A lack of hustle plays compounded a highly ineffective shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -2.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.7
Avg player in 5.2m -9.8
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1