Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 188 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Giddey 10/19 +0.7
Jones Open 6/13 -4.0
Buzelis 5/11 +2.0
Okoro Open 6/11 +0.2
Vučević 6/10 +4.5
Williams Hard 3/9 -1.5
Huerter 3/8 -2.0
Smith 5/7 +4.0
Terry Open 1/3 -0.9
Phillips Hard 0/1 -1.1

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson 10/22 +0.8
Anunoby 8/17 -1.9
Clarkson Hard 6/11 +3.6
Towns Open 5/11 -1.1
Hart 5/10 -0.6
McBride Hard 3/8 -0.2
Bridges Hard 3/7 +0.3
Shamet 3/6 +2.1
Robinson Open 0/3 -4.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
NYK
45/93 Field Goals 43/95
48.4% Field Goal % 45.3%
17/40 3-Pointers 20/42
42.5% 3-Point % 47.6%
9/11 Free Throws 22/22
81.8% Free Throw % 100.0%
59.3% True Shooting % 61.1%
48 Total Rebounds 54
12 Offensive 14
34 Defensive 33
28 Assists 31
2.00 Assist/TO Ratio 2.82
14 Turnovers 11
7 Steals 7
3 Blocks 5
20 Fouls 12
54 Points in Paint 42
19 Fast Break Pts 24
16 Points off TOs 14
18 Second Chance Pts 17
33 Bench Points 46
2 Largest Lead 25
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Karl-Anthony Towns
20 PTS · 15 REB · 5 AST · 36.1 MIN
+24.29
2
Jalen Brunson
31 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 32.4 MIN
+23.16
3
Josh Giddey
23 PTS · 12 REB · 12 AST · 38.3 MIN
+22.41
4
OG Anunoby
21 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 34.8 MIN
+18.98
5
Nikola Vučević
17 PTS · 14 REB · 4 AST · 32.0 MIN
+16.63
6
Josh Hart
14 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 26.0 MIN
+12.6
7
Matas Buzelis
14 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 31.4 MIN
+11.78
8
Patrick Williams
11 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 25.9 MIN
+11.01
9
Jalen Smith
12 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 16.0 MIN
+10.43
10
Tre Jones
15 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 33.9 MIN
+10.39
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:16 D. Terry 24' 3PT (3 PTS) (P. Williams 3 AST) 116–128
Q4 0:22 J. Smith REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 113–128
Q4 0:24 MISS D. Terry driving Layup 113–128
Q4 0:31 M. Bridges traveling TURNOVER (4 TO) 113–128
Q4 0:54 J. Hart REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 113–128
Q4 0:56 MISS D. Terry driving floating bank Shot 113–128
Q4 1:12 N. Vučević REBOUND (Off:4 Def:10) 113–128
Q4 1:14 MISS J. Brunson 26' pullup 3PT 113–128
Q4 1:32 K. Towns REBOUND (Off:3 Def:12) 113–128
Q4 1:34 MISS J. Giddey cutting Layup 113–128
Q4 1:45 J. Brunson Free Throw 1 of 1 (31 PTS) 113–128
Q4 1:45 N. Vučević shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Brunson 1 FT) 113–127
Q4 1:45 J. Brunson driving reverse Layup (30 PTS) 113–127
Q4 2:03 J. Giddey driving Layup (23 PTS) 113–125
Q4 2:06 J. Giddey STEAL (2 STL) 111–125

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

NYK New York Knicks
20
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.3

Bullied his way to the rim and controlled the defensive glass, neutralizing any second-chance opportunities for the opposition. His massive box score impact was slightly tempered by a few careless passes out of double teams. Regardless, his sheer size and spacing ability dictated the entire geometry of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +15.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +12.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 34.8m
21
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Anchored the perimeter defense with suffocating point-of-attack pressure, completely erasing his primary assignment. While his two-way versatility drove a massive box score footprint, a string of offensive fouls on drives cut into his overall margin. He remains the ultimate glue guy, even when his handle gets slightly sloppy.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 34.7m
10
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.2

Playmaking volume was completely overshadowed by a disastrous ratio of live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. He struggled to create separation, forcing passes into tight windows that were easily picked off. Despite decent defensive metrics, his offensive sloppiness single-handedly swung momentum the wrong way.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Brunson 32.5m
31
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.5

Carried the offensive load with a relentless barrage of isolation scoring, punishing drop coverages with his mid-range mastery. He absorbed a massive usage rate, and while that came with an expected tax of turnovers and missed contested threes, his sheer shot-making volume overwhelmed the defense. His ability to draw fouls late in the clock was the defining factor.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +22.2
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Offensively non-existent after breaking a streak of highly efficient finishing, missing all his attempts around the basket. However, he salvaged his impact entirely through elite rim protection and vertical deterrence. Opponents simply refused to challenge him in the paint, altering their shot profile significantly.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring -2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Josh Hart 26.0m
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Provided his signature chaotic energy, crashing the glass and pushing the pace in transition. His impact was heavily muted by a poor perimeter shooting night and a few reckless charges drawn by the defense. He remains a high-floor player whose value fluctuates based on his finishing at the rim.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +9.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Applied tremendous ball pressure and found his rhythm offensively, bouncing back from a recent slump. His positive contributions were entirely wiped out by poor ball security and ill-advised gambles in passing lanes that compromised the defensive shell. A volatile two-way shift that ultimately broke even.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Found his stroke from deep, providing a much-needed spacing element that stretched the opposing defense. Unfortunately, his offensive contributions were negated by defensive lapses and costly fouls that put opponents in the bonus. He operated well as a catch-and-shoot threat but gave the points right back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Provided instant offense off the bench, torching second-unit defenders with an array of floaters and pull-up jumpers. He maintained excellent efficiency and avoided the careless turnovers that usually plague his high-usage stints. His scoring gravity completely warped the defensive rotations during the non-star minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

Barely saw the floor, failing to make an imprint during a brief rotational appearance. He picked up quick negative value likely through a missed rotation or immediate foul. A non-factor who couldn't replicate his recent scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Managed to record a positive defensive action during a fleeting garbage-time appearance. Showed good awareness to stay in front of his man for the final seconds, slightly bumping his defensive metric.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -300.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.5
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -0.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Entered the game for the final possession. Too brief of an appearance to evaluate any tactical impact, resulting in a neutral baseline.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -300.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.2
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Logged purely ceremonial minutes at the end of the game. Did not have enough time to register any meaningful statistics or tactical impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -300.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 38.3m
23
pts
11
reb
12
ast
Impact
+12.6

Dominated the flow of the game with elite defensive rebounding and passing that consistently broke the opposing shell. His aggressive downhill mentality led to a massive scoring surge compared to his recent baseline, though a high volume of giveaways kept his ceiling in check. His size mismatch against smaller guards dictated the tempo all night.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +7.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tre Jones 33.9m
15
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.7

Despite maintaining high-level hustle metrics and orchestrating the offense, his overall value plummeted due to a severe spike in unforced errors. He broke his streak of hyper-efficient shooting, forcing contested looks in the paint that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The playmaking volume was overshadowed by the sheer cost of his turnovers.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.1

Commanded the glass and operated effectively as a hub, driving a massive box-score footprint. However, his overall impact was heavily dragged down by defensive three-second violations or moving screens that stalled offensive momentum. He anchored the drop coverage well enough to keep his final rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +14.9
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Matas Buzelis 31.4m
14
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.9

Incredible activity on the defensive end and high-motor hustle plays were completely neutralized by sloppy ball security. He generated tremendous value through weak-side rotations and contesting shots, but gave it all back with careless offensive execution. A classic high-energy, low-discipline performance that zeroed out his overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 7.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaac Okoro 21.9m
14
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Impact cratered by hidden mistakes, likely a string of live-ball turnovers or costly fouls that erased his otherwise efficient shooting. His defensive metrics dipped into the negative, suggesting he was repeatedly beaten off the dribble in isolation matchups. The scoring volume simply couldn't mask the damage done in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Bounced back offensively with a much-needed scoring punch, but his overall impact remained marginal due to erratic perimeter shooting. He salvaged his value by locking down the wing and generating deflections, proving disruptive in passing lanes. The defensive intensity kept him afloat while his shot selection remained questionable.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Poor shot selection and a cold perimeter stroke severely hampered his offensive gravity. He failed to bend the defense, allowing opponents to clog the driving lanes and force the offense into late-clock situations. Even a few decent hustle plays couldn't salvage a night where his primary skill completely abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Jalen Smith 16.0m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Capitalized on his limited minutes by finishing decisively around the rim and exploiting mismatches in the pick-and-roll. His efficiency spike forced the defense to collapse, opening up the floor despite his lack of playmaking. A highly focused, low-mistake stint that maximized his offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 12.2m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.6

A disastrous rotational shift defined by empty offensive possessions and a total inability to generate rim pressure. He operated as an offensive black hole that allowed the defense to trap the ball-handler freely without fear of punishment. His usually reliable point-of-attack defense also vanished, resulting in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.2%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

Completely invisible during a brief rotation stint, failing to register any meaningful positive actions. He compounded his lack of production with missed rotations that bled points defensively. A quick hook was necessary after he proved unable to match the game's physicality.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Made the most of a garbage-time cameo by immediately hunting his shot and converting from deep. He injected a brief flash of spacing without committing any fouls or errors. A microscopic sample size, but perfectly executed within his role.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 100.0%
Net Rtg +150.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0