GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
20
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.7

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
Offense +20.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 36.1m -22.1
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
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
+3.4

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
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.6
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 34.8m -21.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
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
-8.2

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
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 34.7m -21.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
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
+7.7

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
Offense +18.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 32.5m -19.9
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
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
+2.7

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
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 13.3m -8.2
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
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
+1.1

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
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 26.0m -15.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
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
-0.8

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
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 23.1m -14.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
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
-1.6

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
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 18.3m -11.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
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
+3.9

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
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 17.7m -10.8
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
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
-1.1

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 2.0m -1.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
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
-0.3

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.5m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.5m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 0.5m -0.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 38.3m
23
pts
11
reb
12
ast
Impact
+5.8

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
Offense +16.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 38.3m -23.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
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
-4.5

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
Offense +9.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 33.9m -20.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
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
+2.1

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
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 32.0m -19.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
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
-0.2

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
Offense +8.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 31.4m -19.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
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
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 21.9m -13.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
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
+0.9

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
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.9m -15.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
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
-5.7

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
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 21.4m -13.1
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
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
+5.7

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
Offense +11.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 16.0m -9.8
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
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
-7.5

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
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 12.2m -7.4
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
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
-3.6

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
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 5.8m -3.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
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
+0.7

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
Offense +1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0