Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHI lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
CHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson 12/25 +1.1
Bridges Hard 9/14 +9.1
Towns 6/14 -3.6
Anunoby 10/13 +9.6
McBride 3/9 -1.8
Shamet Hard 1/5 -2.3
Clarkson Hard 1/4 -1.4
Robinson Open 2/3 -0.2
Yabusele 1/3 -0.4
Hart Hard 0/1 -0.9

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Giddey 12/21 +4.9
Vučević 10/17 +5.9
Dosunmu 8/10 +5.1
Buzelis 4/10 -1.8
Huerter 4/7 +1.1
Williams Hard 3/6 +1.8
Smith Hard 3/5 +2.8
Jones Open 0/4 -5.0
Okoro 1/3 -0.6
Phillips Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
CHI
45/91 Field Goals 45/84
49.5% Field Goal % 53.6%
18/45 3-Pointers 17/37
40.0% 3-Point % 45.9%
17/23 Free Throws 28/35
73.9% Free Throw % 80.0%
61.8% True Shooting % 67.9%
46 Total Rebounds 52
12 Offensive 6
27 Defensive 35
27 Assists 31
2.25 Assist/TO Ratio 3.44
12 Turnovers 7
3 Steals 8
5 Blocks 6
25 Fouls 22
38 Points in Paint 54
7 Fast Break Pts 9
12 Points off TOs 25
20 Second Chance Pts 13
21 Bench Points 53
8 Largest Lead 22
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Josh Giddey
32 PTS · 10 REB · 9 AST · 38.5 MIN
+31.63
2
OG Anunoby
26 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 36.5 MIN
+24.38
3
Ayo Dosunmu
22 PTS · 4 REB · 9 AST · 29.3 MIN
+23.05
4
Nikola Vučević
26 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 30.9 MIN
+17.98
5
Mikal Bridges
23 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 37.7 MIN
+17.87
6
Karl-Anthony Towns
22 PTS · 10 REB · 4 AST · 31.7 MIN
+17.8
7
Jalen Smith
10 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 17.1 MIN
+15.73
8
Kevin Huerter
12 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 25.6 MIN
+14.83
9
Jalen Brunson
29 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 35.1 MIN
+13.52
10
Mitchell Robinson
4 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 19.6 MIN
+9.1
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 O. Anunoby driving Layup (26 PTS) 125–135
Q4 0:12 K. Huerter Free Throw 1 of 1 (12 PTS) 123–135
Q4 0:12 O. Anunoby shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Huerter 1 FT) 123–134
Q4 0:12 K. Huerter 7' driving floating bank Jump Shot (11 PTS) (J. Giddey 9 AST) 123–134
Q4 0:18 J. Brunson driving Layup (29 PTS) 123–132
Q4 0:26 T. Jones Free Throw 2 of 2 (8 PTS) 121–132
Q4 0:26 T. Jones Free Throw 1 of 2 (7 PTS) 121–131
Q4 0:26 M. McBride take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Jones 2 FT) 121–130
Q4 0:29 T. Jones REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 121–130
Q4 0:31 MISS J. Brunson Free Throw 2 of 2 121–130
Q4 0:31 J. Brunson Free Throw 1 of 2 (27 PTS) 121–130
Q4 0:31 N. Vučević shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Brunson 2 FT) 120–130
Q4 0:37 T. Jones Free Throw 2 of 2 (6 PTS) 120–130
Q4 0:37 T. Jones Free Throw 1 of 2 (5 PTS) 120–129
Q4 0:37 M. Bridges take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Jones 2 FT) 120–128

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 38.5m
32
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
+26.8

Brilliant pace-pushing and elite passing vision dismantled the opposing transition defense all night. He surprisingly dominated his defensive assignments (+7.0), using his size to disrupt passing lanes and secure long rebounds. Hitting perimeter shots at a high clip forced defenders to play him honest, unlocking his entire offensive arsenal.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +24.2
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +7.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.7

Masterful pick-and-pop execution stretched the opposing frontcourt to its breaking point, opening up massive driving lanes. He anchored the defensive glass and maintained excellent verticality at the rim (+4.6 defense) to deter slashers. A highly disciplined, two-way veteran performance that stabilized the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +19.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 29.2m
13
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Rookie growing pains were evident as processing delays and forced drives into traffic torpedoed his net impact. He showed flashes of high-end activity (+3.4 hustle), but defensive miscommunications and likely live-ball turnovers proved costly. A classic case of raw counting stats masking a highly inefficient floor game.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Jones 24.0m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

An absolute zero as a scoring threat from the field, allowing defenders to sag off and muddy the pick-and-roll spacing. He salvaged some value by pushing the pace and generating transition opportunities through sheer hustle (+4.0). However, the inability to hit a single field goal severely bottlenecked the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Isaac Okoro 16.1m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Opposing defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter, severely cramping the floor for Chicago's primary creators. While he remained disciplined in his defensive rotations (+2.4), his inability to punish closeouts made him a massive offensive liability. The spacing issues ultimately outweighed his point-of-attack containment.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 29.3m
22
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+13.2

Ruthless efficiency on straight-line drives punished the defense every time they failed to gap him properly. He made rapid, decisive reads in the half-court, keeping the ball moving and avoiding stagnant isolation plays. His ability to finish through contact at the rim was the primary engine for his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +19.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Exceptional off-ball defensive awareness (+9.7) defined his night, as he constantly blew up dribble hand-offs and jumped passing lanes. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely backdoor cuts rather than relying solely on his jumper. The relentless energy (+4.6 hustle) set a physical tone that the rest of the perimeter rotation fed off.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.9

Frustrating passivity on the offensive end allowed his primary defender to act as a free safety. While he provided adequate weak-side rim protection (+2.2 defense), his reluctance to attack closeouts stalled multiple possessions. The team bled points during his shifts due to a severe lack of offensive assertiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jalen Smith 17.1m
10
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Completely shifted the momentum of the game with ferocious rim-running and high-energy rim protection (+5.2 defense). He spaced the floor perfectly as a trail big, knocking down crucial perimeter looks to punish drop coverages. A textbook example of a backup big maximizing every second of a short rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +6.6
Defense -1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Failed to leave a meaningful imprint during a brief rotational window, looking hesitant on his lone offensive touch. He competed hard on loose balls (+1.5 hustle) but lacked the spatial awareness to impact the defensive scheme. Ultimately, he was just a warm body eating minutes to buy the starters rest.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +82.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 37.7m
23
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.3

A stark contrast between raw scoring output and actual on-court value, as defensive lapses and likely live-ball turnovers dragged his net rating into the red. He struggled to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack, bleeding points on the other end. The crisp shooting splits masked a surprisingly hollow two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Scoring +18.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 36.5m
26
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.3

Searing perimeter efficiency and elite off-ball movement fueled a massive +14.9 impact score. He completely neutralized his primary wing matchup while generating enormous value through high-leverage hustle plays (+9.2). A masterclass in maximizing touches without needing to dominate the ball.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +23.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 35.1m
29
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.5

Heavy isolation volume and a barrage of missed contested jumpers severely capped his offensive efficiency. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, leading to a negative defensive impact (-1.0) that erased his playmaking contributions. The offense stagnated during his ball-dominant stretches.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +18.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +7.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.1

Poor perimeter spacing and clunky shot selection suppressed his offensive ceiling, but robust interior defense (+6.7) salvaged his overall rating. He controlled the defensive glass effectively to limit second-chance opportunities. The sheer gravity he demanded in the post opened up cutting lanes for others.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +15.5
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.9
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Relentless positioning on the offensive glass created crucial extra possessions, driving a steady positive impact despite minimal scoring volume. He anchored the drop coverage effectively during his stints, forcing opponents into contested mid-range floaters. His value stemmed entirely from doing the dirty work in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +14.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Disastrous offensive execution and forced shots early in the clock plummeted his overall impact score. He failed to organize the second unit effectively, likely bleeding value through poorly timed fouls or unforced errors. Even his trademark point-of-attack pressure couldn't make up for the dead-end offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Hart 15.2m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.4

Complete offensive passivity allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Without his usual transition chaos or rebounding tenacity to fall back on, his lack of scoring gravity became a glaring liability. A highly uncharacteristic disappearing act that tanked the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -58.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Errant perimeter shooting completely short-circuited his offensive utility, as he failed to punish defenders for going under screens. He did manage to stay attached to shooters on the defensive end (+2.2), preventing a total collapse in his minutes. Still, the inability to space the floor rendered his stint a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

Tunnel vision and forced perimeter looks derailed his offensive rhythm, squandering valuable bench possessions. He did show surprising engagement on loose balls (+3.1 hustle), but the erratic shot selection outweighed the extra effort. The offense bogged down into predictable isolation sets when he initiated.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.9

Struggled to adjust to the speed of the game during a brief cameo, likely getting targeted on defensive switches. He failed to generate any offensive advantages, simply swinging the ball without threatening the paint. A tough rotational spot that yielded immediate negative returns.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Provided a brief but physical spark off the bench, using his wide frame to set bone-crushing screens. He held his ground well in the post defensively during his short stint. A perfectly fine micro-shift that kept the rotation afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0