GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Ayo Dosunmu 32.6m
23
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

A massive box score impact was nearly entirely undone by a staggering volume of turnovers and defensive lapses. While his downhill attacking sliced through the defense repeatedly, reckless decision-making in traffic gave the ball right back. A chaotic third-quarter stretch perfectly encapsulated this high-reward, high-risk performance.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -45.3
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 32.6m -19.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Josh Giddey 31.4m
19
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+5.5

Elite positional rebounding and exceptional hustle plays drove a highly productive shift. Brilliant transition hit-ahead passes constantly caught the defense sleeping, offsetting a somewhat inefficient finishing night in the paint. The sheer volume of secondary actions he orchestrated kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 31.4m -19.1
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

Sluggish defensive rotations and an over-reliance on flat pick-and-pop jumpers resulted in a brutal net impact. He was repeatedly targeted in the pick-and-roll, offering minimal resistance in the paint. Failing to establish deep post position forced him into low-efficiency attempts that stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 20.6m -12.5
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 18.6m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

An inability to find the bottom of the net from deep severely limited his offensive utility. Fortunately, weak-side rim protection and active hands prevented his overall score from completely bottoming out. A recurring tendency to rush his perimeter mechanics under pressure defined his struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 18.6m -11.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 16.9m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Costly hidden errors wiped out a decent scoring rhythm, dragging his net impact into negative territory. A troubling stretch of defensive miscommunications and poorly timed fouls gave away easy points at the line. He failed to leverage his athleticism into meaningful stops when isolated on the wing.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -54.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 16.9m -10.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Smith 24.1m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Excellent vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection anchored a highly efficient performance. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, resulting in easy seals and high-percentage finishes. A crucial stretch of weak-side blocks shifted the momentum and highlighted his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 24.1m -14.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Tremendous energy and hustle were entirely squandered by a dreadful offensive showing. A flurry of forced drives and bricked perimeter looks killed off multiple promising possessions. Chaotic shot selection overshadowed the genuine disruption he caused on the offensive glass.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 18.3m -11.1
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Complete invisibility on the defensive end and a lack of rebounding presence doomed his net rating. He floated on the perimeter offensively, settling for contested looks rather than attacking closeouts. A passive approach to physical matchups allowed opponents to dictate the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 18.3m -11.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jevon Carter 18.1m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Settling exclusively for low-percentage perimeter bombs tanked his offensive value and dragged his net score into the red. He failed to pressure the rim or collapse the defense, making his offensive shifts entirely predictable. While his on-ball pressure was adequate, the empty offensive possessions were too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 18.1m -11.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Jones 17.9m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Dogged point-of-attack defense fought to offset a completely stagnant offensive showing. Hesitancy to attack the paint allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes, stalling half-court sets. His inability to punish drop coverage with a floater or pull-up jumper severely capped his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 17.9m -10.9
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Dalen Terry 13.4m
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Total lack of offensive aggression and poor defensive positioning resulted in a disastrous net impact. He was completely ignored by the opposing defense, which allowed them to aggressively double-team the ball handlers. A pattern of getting caught ball-watching led to multiple back-door cuts.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -41.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.7
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 13.4m -8.2
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Cold shooting and an inability to create separation off the dribble led to a negative impact in limited action. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, frequently leaving his big men exposed to downhill drivers. Failing to connect on open catch-and-shoot looks neutralized his primary value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -82.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 9.9m -5.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 29.4m
18
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.2

Defensive anchoring and active rim deterrence salvaged an otherwise clunky offensive outing. A pattern of settling for contested mid-range jumpers dragged down his scoring efficiency. However, his ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions at the point of attack kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 29.4m -18.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 27.9m
20
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.3

Utterly dominated the interior with a staggering defensive impact fueled by elite rim protection and verticality. Relentless activity on the glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back during a pivotal second-half stretch. The sheer volume of paint touches he converted or rebounded made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.8
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 27.9m -17.0
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 26.1m
16
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.5

Exceedingly efficient offensive orchestration drove a massive positive impact. Pristine shot selection on the perimeter kept possessions alive, while crisp drive-and-kick reads generated high-value looks for teammates. The lack of forced actions defined this highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 26.1m -16.0
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Norman Powell 24.6m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Gritty point-of-attack defense heavily masked a wildly inconsistent perimeter shooting night. He repeatedly forced his way into the teeth of the defense, drawing contact and creating chaos rather than relying on his jumper. Relentless ball-pressure against opposing guards set a physical tone that elevated his net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 24.6m -15.0
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 23.8m
16
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.5

Surgical precision on dribble penetrations resulted in a near-flawless offensive execution. By refusing to settle for low-percentage looks, he maximized every touch and generated a stellar box impact. Dissecting defensive rotations without committing careless errors was the catalyst for his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 23.8m -14.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

High-motor defensive assignments and relentless rebounding compensated for a rough finishing night around the rim. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer physical exertion on the offensive glass. A willingness to embrace the dirty work against larger matchups kept his overall impact positive despite the bricked layups.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 29.5m -17.9
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.3

Disastrous perimeter shot selection cratered his overall rating to a team-worst score. A relentless barrage of forced, contested threes killed offensive momentum and frequently sparked opponent transition opportunities. While his defensive rotations were surprisingly sharp, the sheer volume of wasted possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +46.1
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 25.2m -15.3
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.3

Hidden negative plays completely erased a solid playmaking foundation, plunging his net score into the red. A frustrating pattern of live-ball turnovers and ill-advised fouls negated the value he provided as a secondary creator. Struggling to handle aggressive closeouts ultimately led to disrupted offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 23.9m -14.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Dru Smith 18.4m
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.9

Suffocating perimeter defense defined a highly disruptive rotational stint. He completely neutralized his primary matchup, blowing up dribble hand-offs and jumping passing lanes to create transition chaos. Capitalizing on open spot-up looks further solidified his excellent net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +75.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.2
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 18.4m -11.2
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalized on a brief cameo by immediately punishing defensive drop coverage from beyond the arc. A decisive trigger on catch-and-shoot opportunities provided a quick offensive jolt. The complete lack of hesitation defined his short but effective stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 6.2m -3.7
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Made the most of garbage-time minutes by remaining engaged and hitting his lone perimeter look. Quick defensive closeouts showed focus despite the lopsided game situation. This was a textbook example of maximizing a brief rotational opportunity.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 4.9m -2.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0