GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 39.2m
34
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.4

A heavy reliance on isolation scoring yielded massive volume but required a high number of empty trips to get there. He dictated the tempo entirely, using elite footwork to generate space for his perimeter barrage. Despite the sheer number of missed shots, his ability to consistently draw defensive attention and hit timely daggers drove a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 39.2m -21.9
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 36.2m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Elite hustle plays and suffocating perimeter defense defined a gritty, high-effort performance. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and generated deflections, disrupting the opponent's primary offensive actions. While his scoring volume was modest, his relentless energy on 50/50 balls provided a crucial stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +8.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 36.2m -20.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 33.1m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

Offensive passivity and missed perimeter assignments severely hindered his overall effectiveness, despite respectable individual defensive metrics. He struggled to establish any rhythm against physical wing coverage, often settling for contested late-clock jumpers. A sharp drop in his usual scoring aggression allowed the opposition to load up elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 33.1m -18.4
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Poor shot selection and struggles finishing through traffic overshadowed a dominant effort on the glass. He frequently forced the issue against double teams in the post, leading to empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent. Excellent defensive rebounding and rim deterrence kept his impact near neutral, but the offensive inefficiency was glaring.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 27.4m -15.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Hart 26.4m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Erratic decision-making in transition and occasional defensive gambles slightly outweighed a solid shooting night. While he pushed the pace effectively, a few costly live-ball turnovers gave the opponent easy momentum-swinging baskets. His typical rebounding tenacity was present, but the chaotic nature of his playmaking resulted in a marginal net negative.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 26.4m -14.7
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

An explosive scoring barrage off the bench completely tilted the game's momentum, as he punished drop coverage with lethal pull-up shooting. He hunted mismatches ruthlessly, exploiting slower defenders on the perimeter to generate clean looks. Surprisingly active defensive rotations further boosted his value, making this a highly impactful two-way stint.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 28.8m -16.0
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 24.7m
16
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.2

Masterful orchestration of the second unit and lethal spot-up shooting completely shattered his recent slump. He manipulated defensive tags with his eyes, consistently finding cutters and shooters right in their shooting pockets. The combination of elite floor-generalship and punishing perimeter efficiency made him the engine of the team's best stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 24.7m -13.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Complete offensive invisibility was entirely offset by absolute dominance on the glass and elite rim protection. He completely erased second-chance opportunities for the opponent while generating extra possessions for his own squad through sheer physical imposition. The lack of scoring didn't matter when his vertical spacing and rebounding were this overwhelming.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 16.6m -9.2
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Struggled to anchor the paint during a short stint, looking lost on defensive rotations. Opponents quickly targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage, exploiting his slow processing speed to generate easy looks at the rim. The inability to secure the defensive glass further compounded a rough handful of minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 4.0m -2.3
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Maximized a very brief appearance by immediately hunting his shot and connecting from deep. He provided instant offensive energy, capitalizing on a defensive breakdown to find open space. The tiny sample size limits sweeping conclusions, but his minute-to-production ratio was flawless.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 3.7m -2.0
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Darius Garland 36.0m
20
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-7.0

A porous point-of-attack defense completely erased the value of his offensive orchestration. Opposing guards consistently blew past him on the perimeter, forcing the frontcourt into scramble situations that yielded easy dump-offs. Despite elite shot creation and passing, giving up constant straight-line drives doomed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 36.0m -20.2
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
34
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+20.8

Relentless rim pressure and elite shot-creation overwhelmed the defensive scheme, driving a massive positive impact. He consistently punished switches, using his burst to collapse the defense and generate high-quality looks for himself and others. Active hands in passing lanes further amplified his value, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +39.2
Avg player in 32.9m -18.4
Impact +20.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dean Wade 29.5m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

A passive offensive approach limited his influence, as he frequently passed up open looks on the perimeter. His reluctance to punish defensive closeouts allowed the opposition to crowd the paint and stifle the primary actions. Positive hustle metrics couldn't overcome the glaring spacing deficit his hesitation created.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 29.5m -16.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 29.2m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A barrage of missed perimeter shots cratered his offensive impact, stalling out halfcourt sets. While active hands and crisp rotations buoyed his defensive metrics, opponents aggressively sagged off him to clog the driving lanes. This lack of gravity ultimately doomed his minutes to negative territory.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 29.2m -16.3
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 23.1m
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Elite screen-setting and interior positioning drove his positive hustle metrics, even as his offensive touches plummeted compared to recent outings. He anchored the paint with disciplined verticality, deterring straight-line drives without committing costly fouls. The lack of scoring volume kept his overall impact muted, but his dirty work in the trenches remained highly effective.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 23.1m -12.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Stagnant off-ball movement and a tendency to hold the ball against set defenses dragged his overall impact into the red. While he hit a couple of timely perimeter shots, his lack of secondary playmaking stalled out several offensive sets. Defensive metrics remained stable, but his inability to consistently bend the defense limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 27.1m -15.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Evan Mobley 25.3m
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Surgical efficiency around the basket and elite weak-side rim protection anchored a highly productive two-way performance. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, capitalizing on early post seals to generate easy offense. His ability to switch onto guards late in the clock stifled multiple possessions, cementing a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 25.3m -14.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylon Tyson 20.1m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Aggressive slashing and decisive shot selection fueled a highly efficient scoring punch off the bench. He consistently attacked closeouts with purpose, either finishing through contact or keeping the offensive chain moving. Strong rebounding from the wing position added extra value, capping off a dynamic and impactful rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 20.1m -11.2
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Lonzo Ball 13.7m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

An absolute non-factor offensively, his inability to pressure the rim or look for his own shot allowed defenders to completely ignore him. The resulting 4-on-5 halfcourt spacing suffocated the team's offensive flow while he was on the floor. Even fundamentally sound positional defense couldn't salvage a disastrous stint defined by offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 13.7m -7.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided a brief burst of floor-spacing from the center position during a very short stint. He executed his pick-and-pop assignments perfectly, drawing the opposing big away from the rim. The limited sample size kept his overall impact marginal, but he accomplished exactly what was asked of him.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -140.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1