GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 33.7m
27
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.0

Exploded offensively with decisive, confident shot selection that stretched the defense to its breaking point. His off-ball movement was a constant problem for Sacramento, leading to high-value perimeter looks and easy cuts to the rim. A phenomenal blend of scoring gravity and active weak-side hustle cemented this as a true breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 33.7m -18.8
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
13
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.6

Controlled the geometry of the game through exceptional defensive positioning and elite rebounding that limited second-chance opportunities. Operating as an offensive hub from the elbows, his passing dismantled double-teams and generated clean looks for cutters. He completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt in the post during a pivotal third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 32.6m -18.0
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 56.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Giddey 31.1m
20
pts
8
reb
12
ast
Impact
-1.0

The gaudy playmaking volume masked a series of costly live-ball turnovers that consistently fueled opponent fast breaks. While his transition passing was occasionally brilliant, defensive lapses at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives to the rim. His overall impact slipped into the red because he surrendered nearly as much value as he created on the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +38.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 31.1m -17.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tre Jones 29.6m
11
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.7

Orchestrated the offense with surgical precision, refusing to force bad shots while maintaining exceptional efficiency. His relentless ball pressure and screen navigation disrupted Sacramento's primary actions all night. Despite a relatively low usage rate, his steady hand and elite hustle metrics stabilized the backcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 29.6m -16.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 28.7m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Sunk by offensive hesitancy and poor spacing, allowing his primary defender to roam freely and disrupt Chicago's offensive flow. While his point-of-attack defense remained tenacious against Sacramento's guards, the inability to punish closeouts negated that value. His minutes were defined by stalled half-court sets where he passed up open perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 28.7m -15.9
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns with lethal catch-and-shoot execution, heavily punishing late closeouts. However, his lack of physical engagement on the glass and minimal defensive resistance allowed Sacramento to attack him on switches. The elite scoring efficiency was almost entirely offset by his inability to string together stops on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 25.1m -13.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 21.2m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Bogged down by poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact in the paint. His defensive intensity waned, frequently getting caught on screens and allowing open driving lanes for opposing guards. A noticeable lack of transition awareness further compounded a thoroughly disjointed performance.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense -1.4
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 21.2m -11.8
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Sidelined his own value through chronic defensive miscommunications and an inability to navigate off-ball screens. Even though he found a rare rhythm from beyond the arc, his lack of rebounding and physical presence inside gave Sacramento too many extra possessions. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, bleeding points that erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 19.6m -10.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Smith 15.4m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Dominated the interior with decisive rim runs and putbacks, completely abandoning the perimeter after struggling with his outside shot. His physicality altered several shots at the basket, providing a much-needed defensive anchor for the second unit. By recognizing his shooting slump and adjusting his shot profile inward, he salvaged a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 15.4m -8.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Rushed his lone perimeter attempt during a frantic late-game sequence that immediately led to a transition bucket the other way. He struggled to find the pace of the game in his brief cameo. A blown defensive rotation effectively sealed his negative rating for the night.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Zach LaVine 36.2m
30
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Relentless downhill attacking drove a massive overall impact, as he repeatedly punished defenders who closed out too hard. Even with a cold touch from the perimeter, his ability to finish through contact at the rim kept the offense afloat. His surprisingly engaged weak-side defense further amplified his value during a dominant third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 36.2m -20.2
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 34.7m
19
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite highly efficient isolation scoring from the midrange, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to sluggish defensive rotations against Chicago's wings. His refusal to stretch the floor from deep allowed the defense to pack the paint during crucial second-half stretches. The underlying metrics masked a noticeable lack of disruptive hustle plays when Sacramento needed stops.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 34.7m -19.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.0

Anchored the interior with bruising screens and high-post facilitation that kept the offense humming at a highly efficient clip. His defensive positioning neutralized Chicago's rim attacks, driving a strong positive impact despite some wayward perimeter attempts. Operating as the central hub, his physicality wore down the opposing frontcourt over four quarters.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 31.5m -17.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

Relentless point-of-attack pressure defined his minutes, generating a massive defensive and hustle footprint that kept the second unit energized. However, erratic shot selection from beyond the arc capped his overall effectiveness and stalled out multiple possessions. He operated as a chaotic energy-shifter, though the half-court execution remained uneven.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 28.7m -16.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.2

Offensive stagnation cratered his overall rating, exacerbated by an inability to finish in the paint or create separation off the dribble. While his on-ball defensive metrics remained respectable, the sheer volume of empty possessions derailed the team's momentum. He struggled to find any rhythm against Chicago's drop coverage, stalling out multiple half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 27.8m -15.3
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 27.6m
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Injected immediate life into the rotation with decisive, highly efficient shot-making inside the arc. His constant off-ball motion scrambled defensive assignments, while active hands in passing lanes generated valuable transition opportunities. This spark-plug performance perfectly balanced scoring punch with disruptive perimeter hustle.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.6m -15.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 23.2m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Faded into the background offensively, missing crucial spacing opportunities from the corner and allowing his defender to roam. His defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, but a lack of assertiveness allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo. The resulting cramped floor space ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 23.2m -12.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Eubanks 16.5m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Provided sturdy, mistake-free minutes as a backup rim protector and lob threat. He executed his role flawlessly by sealing off driving lanes and finishing the few dump-off passes that came his way. A brief but highly effective second-quarter stint showcased his value as a reliable rotational anchor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 16.5m -9.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Devin Carter 12.1m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

A complete offensive disappearing act severely damaged his floor time, as he failed to capitalize on open spot-up looks. Defenders aggressively sagged off him, effectively turning Sacramento's offense into a four-on-five battle. Despite marginal defensive contributions, his inability to threaten the rim made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 12.1m -6.6
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Logged purely developmental minutes at the tail end of the rotation. His brief stint lacked enough possessions to generate any meaningful statistical footprint. A quick defensive breakdown in transition accounted for the slight dip in his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0