Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Sarr 8/16 -2.3
George 6/11 +2.4
Coulibaly 5/11 +1.0
Johnson Hard 4/9 +1.8
McCollum Hard 2/9 -4.2
Kispert Hard 5/6 +6.5
Branham 2/3 +1.6
Bagley III Open 2/3 +0.1
Vukcevic Hard 1/3 -0.7
Champagnie Hard 1/3 -1.2

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Towns 12/24 -0.3
Brunson 6/17 -4.8
Anunoby Open 7/13 -0.2
Clarkson Hard 5/8 +3.3
Bridges 4/8 +0.8
Shamet Hard 3/8 -0.4
Hart 5/7 +3.7
McBride Hard 1/3 +0.4
Kolek 1/2 -0.1
Yabusele Hard 0/2 -2.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
NYK
38/81 Field Goals 44/94
46.9% Field Goal % 46.8%
13/35 3-Pointers 15/41
37.1% 3-Point % 36.6%
13/19 Free Throws 16/20
68.4% Free Throw % 80.0%
57.1% True Shooting % 57.9%
49 Total Rebounds 54
7 Offensive 12
37 Defensive 37
30 Assists 32
1.50 Assist/TO Ratio 2.67
20 Turnovers 12
7 Steals 12
5 Blocks 4
21 Fouls 16
42 Points in Paint 52
8 Fast Break Pts 16
11 Points off TOs 21
14 Second Chance Pts 8
44 Bench Points 33
10 Largest Lead 27
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Karl-Anthony Towns
33 PTS · 13 REB · 5 AST · 30.5 MIN
+29.11
2
OG Anunoby
16 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 32.0 MIN
+21.64
3
Alex Sarr
19 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 29.5 MIN
+20.7
4
Mikal Bridges
10 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 29.5 MIN
+18.22
5
Corey Kispert
15 PTS · 0 REB · 4 AST · 14.8 MIN
+12.68
6
Kyshawn George
15 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 30.4 MIN
+12.56
7
Josh Hart
12 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 26.4 MIN
+12.3
8
Jordan Clarkson
15 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 21.4 MIN
+11.73
9
Jalen Brunson
16 PTS · 1 REB · 9 AST · 32.5 MIN
+9.47
10
Landry Shamet
11 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 24.6 MIN
+8.13
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:15 P. Dadiet REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 102–119
Q4 0:18 MISS T. Vukcevic 25' 3PT 102–119
Q4 0:28 L. Shamet 3PT (11 PTS) (M. Diawara 1 AST) 102–119
Q4 0:38 A. Hukporti REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 102–116
Q4 0:40 MISS A. Johnson driving finger roll Layup 102–116
Q4 0:50 T. Kolek floating Jump Shot (2 PTS) (A. Hukporti 1 AST) 102–116
Q4 1:10 A. Hukporti REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 102–114
Q4 1:13 MISS M. Branham Free Throw 2 of 2 102–114
Q4 1:13 TEAM offensive REBOUND 102–114
Q4 1:13 MISS M. Branham Free Throw 1 of 2 102–114
Q4 1:13 M. Diawara shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Branham 2 FT) 102–114
Q4 1:21 A. Gill REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 102–114
Q4 1:24 MISS M. Diawara Free Throw 2 of 2 102–114
Q4 1:24 TEAM offensive REBOUND 102–114
Q4 1:24 MISS M. Diawara Free Throw 1 of 2 102–114

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
S Jalen Brunson 32.5m
16
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.4

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
Scoring +8.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
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
+21.2

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
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +11.6
Turnovers -4.7
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
+33.9

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
Scoring +23.0
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +15.5
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -6.6
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
+11.9

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
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +8.3
Turnovers +0.0
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
+6.0

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
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
+5.7

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
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
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
+5.8

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
Scoring +12.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
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
+0.4

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
Scoring +1.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
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
-12.4

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
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
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
-16.5

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
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
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
-7.2

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
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

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
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

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
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 30.4m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

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
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -10.2
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
+18.6

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
Scoring +13.1
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +9.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -3.5
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
+3.9

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
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -10.2
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
-4.1

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
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-5.9

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
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
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
-22.5

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
Scoring -1.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -12.6
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
-0.3

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
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
+5.2

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
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
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
+2.8

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
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
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
-11.4

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
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
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
-12.0

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
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Johnson 4.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

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
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-3.0

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
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-4.4

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0