GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 32.5m
16
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.5

A heavy diet of forced, contested jumpers severely capped his overall effectiveness despite high-level playmaking. While his relentless motor (+6.9 Hustle) and floor generalship kept the offense moving, the sheer volume of missed shots prevented him from registering a higher total impact.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +6.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 32.5m -17.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 32.0m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.2

Absolute dominance at the point of attack (+13.6 Def) suffocated the opposing wings and set the tone for the entire game. He paired this lockdown perimeter coverage with relentless transition hustle (+7.0), turning defensive stops into highly efficient offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +7.0
Defense +13.6
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 32.0m -17.8
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
33
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.5

Completely overwhelming the interior defense, his relentless, high-usage offensive barrage generated an astronomical +25.4 box score impact. He compounded the matchup nightmare by anchoring the glass and providing sturdy post defense (+6.9) to cap off a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 38.7%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +25.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.9
Raw total +35.4
Avg player in 30.5m -16.9
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 29.5m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Masterful navigation of screens and flawless weak-side rotations drove a massive +10.9 defensive impact. Even on a lower-volume shooting night, his ability to blow up dribble hand-offs and disrupt passing lanes made him indispensable to the starting unit's success.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +10.9
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 29.5m -16.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Landry Shamet 24.6m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Constant off-ball motion and active closeouts (+5.0 Hustle) allowed him to positively influence the game even when his jumper wasn't perfectly dialed in. He stretched the floor effectively, creating driving lanes for the primary creators while holding his own in perimeter defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 24.6m -13.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Josh Hart 26.4m
12
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.7

Trademark chaos-creation and elite rebounding for his position fueled a highly disruptive +6.9 hustle metric. He punished defensive lapses with opportunistic, highly efficient cuts to the basket, serving as the ultimate glue guy for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +6.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 26.4m -14.6
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Instant-offense shot creation (+11.4 Box) kept the scoreboard ticking, but his impact was heavily muted by defensive indifference. A severe lack of secondary effort (+0.4 Hustle) meant he gave back nearly everything he generated on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 21.4m -11.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Providing steady point-of-attack pressure (+1.8 Def), he nonetheless struggled to organize the second-unit offense effectively. A few poorly timed rotational breakdowns while he was on the floor resulted in a slightly negative total impact despite his individual defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 14.2m -7.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Sluggish defensive rotations (-0.8) and a complete lack of offensive rhythm made him a liability during the second-quarter stretches. His inability to secure positioning in the paint allowed opponents to capitalize on second-chance opportunities, tanking his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 13.9m -7.7
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Looking completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game during his brief appearance, his stint resulted in a disastrous -7.6 total impact. Blown defensive assignments and poor spatial awareness allowed the opposition to feast during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total -5.2
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Managing to find a quick seam to the basket, he otherwise operated as a non-factor in the half-court offense. A lack of defensive resistance or hustle plays kept his brief stint slightly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.7m -2.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Essentially running cardio during his late-game minutes, he failed to record any meaningful offensive or hustle statistics. He maintained basic defensive positioning but lacked the aggression needed to positively influence the game flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Anchoring the paint effectively during garbage time, he utilized his size to deter drivers and secure a +1.4 defensive rating. His fundamental rim protection ensured the opponent couldn't generate easy looks to close out the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 30.4m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Elite defensive rotations and relentless energy (+7.0 Hustle) defined his two-way impact in this matchup. He consistently blew up opponent actions on the perimeter, pairing that defensive anchor role with highly efficient shot selection when his number was called.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +7.0
Defense +9.3
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 30.4m -16.9
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Alex Sarr 29.5m
19
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.0

Breaking out of a brutal shooting slump, he dominated the interior matchups to generate a massive +18.2 box metric. His rim protection and active contests (+7.8 Def) perfectly complemented his aggressive, high-volume finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 29.5m -16.3
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 32
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 27.8m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Despite flashing excellent individual defensive tools and active hands (+4.7 Hustle), his floor time coincided with damaging opponent runs. Hidden costs like poorly timed fouls or rotational breakdowns ultimately dragged his total impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 27.8m -15.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S CJ McCollum 21.9m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Forced into contested perimeter looks, his inability to create separation resulted in a severe offensive drop-off from his recent averages. The lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption meant he had no way to salvage his overall impact (-8.8) when the jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 21.9m -12.1
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

A sharp drop-off from his recent hot streak left him floating on the perimeter without his usual offensive rhythm. His overall impact cratered (-7.5) due to defensive lapses and a lack of disruptive hustle plays to compensate for the quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -69.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 17.3m -9.7
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-19.0

Completely neutralized by physical point-of-attack defense, his inability to initiate the offense resulted in a catastrophic -19.0 overall impact. He was repeatedly targeted on the other end of the floor, compounding the damage of his scoreless outing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -40.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense -1.8
Raw total -5.1
Avg player in 25.0m -13.9
Impact -19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Tre Johnson 21.1m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Strong on-ball pressure yielded a highly positive defensive rating (+5.1), but his overall footprint remained slightly negative. A lack of loose-ball recoveries and secondary hustle plays limited his ability to fully tilt the game's momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 21.1m -11.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

Lethal off-ball movement and pristine shot selection fueled a massive offensive surge (+14.2 Box) in limited minutes. He completely shredded the opposing bench unit's defensive coverages, easily offsetting his minor struggles containing dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 109.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Operating strictly within his role, he provided a highly efficient spark through offensive glass work and interior positioning. His +4.2 hustle score reflects a willingness to do the dirty work in the paint, maximizing his value despite a lower usage rate than usual.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 14.2m -7.9
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Whitmore 11.2m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Stagnant offensive positioning left him marginalized during his stint on the floor. Without his usual downhill aggression, his impact plummeted (-7.6) as he failed to bend the defense or create meaningful advantages.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 11.2m -6.1
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 10.3m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

An uncharacteristically passive approach saw him vanish from the offensive game plan, failing to attempt a single shot. While he provided adequate rotational defense, his absolute refusal to attack the rim or look for his own offense severely handicapped the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 10.3m -5.6
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

Maximizing a brief cameo, he aggressively hunted his spots and executed defensive assignments perfectly (+2.1 Def). His immediate energy injection and willingness to contest shots at the rim yielded a highly efficient positive impact in just four minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 4.3m -2.3
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Providing a quick, decisive scoring punch during a brief rotational window, he attacked closeouts effectively to generate clean looks. However, his overall footprint remained relatively neutral due to a lack of supplementary hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 4.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Failing to leave any measurable imprint on the game during his short stint, he registered zero hustle or defensive metrics. A lack of assertiveness on both ends allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Showing excellent discipline during a spot-duty assignment, he stayed perfectly within his role to secure a positive defensive rating. He capitalized on his lone offensive touch around the basket, ensuring his brief minutes were a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0