GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 37.4m
29
pts
15
reb
12
ast
Impact
+11.5

Elite offensive orchestration and a massive scoring surge drove a dominant overall impact. He consistently exploited mismatches in the pick-and-roll, pairing high-level shot creation with excellent positional rebounding to completely control the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 37.4m -21.0
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Isaac Okoro 33.0m
16
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.2

High-level efficiency from the perimeter and excellent hustle metrics drove a highly positive two-way performance. He capitalized perfectly on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners, punishing defensive rotations while maintaining solid point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 33.0m -18.5
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.7

Dominant interior positioning and exceptional hustle metrics fueled a massive positive impact score. He controlled the paint on both ends of the floor, generating extra possessions and anchoring the defense to easily overcome a cold night from deep.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +6.9
Defense +8.5
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 31.1m -17.4
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 36.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 30.4m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Poor finishing inside the arc severely dragged down his net impact despite respectable defensive metrics. He struggled to navigate physical traffic in the paint, leading to empty possessions that completely overshadowed his underlying hustle.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 30.4m -17.0
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Tre Jones 26.8m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Off-the-charts hustle and lockdown defensive positioning defined a highly impactful shift. Even with his scoring volume dipping below recent averages, his relentless ball pressure and ability to generate loose balls kept his value firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +9.4
Defense +8.1
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 26.8m -15.0
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Inefficient volume shooting torpedoed his impact score despite surprisingly decent defensive metrics. He forced too many contested looks early in the shot clock, stalling the offensive flow and breaking his recent streak of efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 25.0m -14.0
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Continued offensive passivity and poor shooting efficiency kept his impact squarely in the negative. While his defensive rotations were adequate, his inability to punish closeouts or hit open jumpers allowed the defense to completely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 20.6m -11.6
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jalen Smith 16.9m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A surprising scoring outburst masked a complete lack of defensive resistance, ultimately leading to a negative overall impact. He provided excellent floor spacing as a trail big, but his inability to protect the rim or secure contested rebounds gave those points right back.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 16.9m -9.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Dalen Terry 13.7m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

A lack of tangible involvement on either end of the floor resulted in a noticeably negative impact score. He struggled to assert himself during his brief stint, failing to generate the disruptive defensive plays that usually justify his rotation spot.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 13.7m -7.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely registered an impact during a very brief, cardio-heavy stint on the floor. He provided a slight defensive bump but was completely ignored on offense, continuing a recent trend of zero scoring production.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 5.1m -2.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 39.3m
39
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.9

A masterful display of perimeter shot creation drove a massive positive impact score. He consistently broke down the primary point-of-attack defender to generate high-quality looks, pairing that elite scoring volume with highly disruptive defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 14/26 (53.8%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.1%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +8.2
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 39.3m -21.9
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S VJ Edgecombe 37.7m
12
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

A sharp drop in interior finishing efficiency tanked his net impact despite commendable effort on the glass. He struggled to convert in traffic, breaking a recent streak of high-percentage scoring and leaving too many empty possessions on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 37.7m -21.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 32.6m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Surgical shot selection drove his positive impact, as he relentlessly punished closeouts to easily exceed his recent scoring averages. His two-way value was cemented by strong defensive rotations that consistently disrupted the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 32.6m -18.2
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 25.6m
20
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.7

An elite defensive anchor salvaged an otherwise brutal shooting night characterized by forced perimeter jumpers. While his offensive efficiency cratered compared to his recent standards, his sheer presence in the paint successfully deterred opposing drives to keep his overall impact highly positive.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 40.9%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +11.0
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 25.6m -14.3
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 3
S Jabari Walker 18.7m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Solid hustle numbers kept him afloat defensively, but a complete lack of offensive aggression dragged his overall impact into the negative. He deferred too often on the perimeter, failing to capitalize on the few scoring opportunities he saw and continuing a recent trend of passivity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 18.7m -10.5
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.2

Stellar point-of-attack defense couldn't mask the damage caused by a frigid night from beyond the arc. His inability to punish sagging defenders derailed the team's half-court spacing and snapped a recent streak of highly efficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.7
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 29.6m -16.5
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 4
Adem Bona 22.4m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Defensive verticality and relentless energy plays kept his impact in the green despite a near-total lack of offensive production. He fully embraced his role as a rim deterrent, sacrificing scoring touches to focus entirely on blowing up opponent pick-and-rolls.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 3.5%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 22.4m -12.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Invisible defensive impact and low offensive volume resulted in a heavily negative overall rating. He simply floated through his minutes without leaving a tangible mark on either end of the floor, failing to generate the extra possessions or stops needed to boost his value.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 19.0m -10.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jared McCain 15.2m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.9

A complete offensive goose egg and nonexistent hustle metrics cratered his overall impact during his brief stint. He looked hesitant against physical perimeter pressure, rushing his jumpers and failing to contribute any secondary value to offset the scoring drought.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 15.2m -8.5
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0