GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 42.4m
15
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.3

A suffocating defensive masterclass completely erased his primary assignment, generating a staggering +24.5 defensive metric. That elite perimeter lockdown and relentless hustle salvaged his value on a night where his jump shot was completely broken.

Shooting
FG 6/21 (28.6%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +6.9
Defense +24.5
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 42.4m -28.6
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 7
BLK 2
TO 2
39
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.9

Utterly dismantled the opposing frontcourt by stretching the floor with lethal pick-and-pop execution. His commanding presence in the paint forced double-teams, while active rim contests solidified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 6/14 (42.9%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +31.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +42.7
Avg player in 38.0m -25.8
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles McBride 29.9m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.6

Poor shot selection from the perimeter consistently bailed out the opposing defense and triggered fast breaks going the other way. His struggles to navigate screens defensively further compounded a highly damaging shift.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 29.9m -20.2
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Dominating the glass wasn't enough to overcome his offensive limitations, as his inability to finish around the basket stalled multiple possessions. Opponents successfully neutralized his rim-running threat, turning him into an offensive liability despite the extra possessions he generated.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -26.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 14.1m -9.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 5.1m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

An unusually brief outing was marred by forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that failed to connect. He never found his defensive footing before heading to the bench, resulting in a mildly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 5.1m -3.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
36
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

Punished drop coverage all night with a blistering display of off-screen shooting. His constant off-ball motion warped the defense, creating a massive offensive surplus that easily covered his average defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +31.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +36.5
Avg player in 37.2m -25.1
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Hart 33.6m
12
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.8

Careless ball security destroyed his otherwise stellar playmaking, as a string of live-ball turnovers directly fed the opponent's transition attack. Despite his trademark rebounding energy, those critical mistakes in the half-court completely cratered his net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 33.6m -22.7
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 44.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
24
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

Manufactured crucial points out of broken plays, utilizing his isolation scoring to keep the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. However, his total impact was muted by a complete lack of defensive resistance and minimal effort on loose balls.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.0
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 33.2m -22.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Slow defensive rotations during his brief stint allowed opponents to capitalize on open corner looks. His perfect shooting mark couldn't mask the defensive bleeding that occurred while he anchored the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 6.3m -4.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Checked in for a singular dead-ball situation at the end of a quarter. He accumulated zero measurable impact in his two seconds of action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0m -0.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 35.6m
15
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.1

An abysmal shot profile completely torpedoed his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. While his activity on the glass and loose ball recoveries provided a solid hustle metric, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged the team down.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 35.6m -24.1
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kel'el Ware 35.0m
15
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Anchored the interior with exceptional rim protection, driving a massive defensive rating that deterred opponents from the paint. His selective, high-percentage finishing around the basket perfectly complemented his relentless effort on second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +5.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 35.0m -23.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 33.3m
11
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
+1.8

Elite point-of-attack pressure and constant loose-ball recoveries fueled a phenomenal hustle score. He operated as a pure facilitator on offense, though his reluctance to look for his own shot slightly capped his overall offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +9.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 33.3m -22.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 32.9m
38
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.7

Scorching perimeter execution broke the opposing defense's back, generating massive offensive value through high-volume catch-and-shoot looks. His pure scoring gravity opened up the floor, completely offsetting his lack of playmaking creation for others.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 8/15 (53.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 32.9m -22.2
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 24.0m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite spacing the floor effectively from the perimeter, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive rotations that allowed open driving lanes. A handful of costly live-ball turnovers negated the value of his efficient spot-up shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 24.0m -16.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
23
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.0

Forcing the issue in isolation sets led to a slew of empty trips and transition opportunities for the opponent. Even though he filled up the traditional stat sheet, the sheer number of clanked mid-range pull-ups severely dented his net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 34.2m -23.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Operating strictly as a stationary floor spacer limited his ability to influence the game beyond the arc. A lack of secondary playmaking and defensive rebounding allowed opponents to exploit his side of the floor repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -33.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 14.7m -9.9
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 14.7m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Provided a spark of energy with timely deflections and solid rotational awareness on the defensive end. However, his extreme passivity on offense allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, stalling the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 14.7m -9.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.0

Bleeding points on the defensive end, he struggled to stay in front of quicker wings during his brief stint on the floor. Errant passes and rushed perimeter attempts further compounded a highly detrimental shift.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 13.4m -9.1
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A fleeting appearance yielded virtually no statistical footprint outside of a single missed attempt at the rim. He simply did not log enough floor time to establish any rhythm or meaningful impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -76.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.2m -1.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0