Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead MIN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIN 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Randle 12/21 +2.4
DiVincenzo Hard 7/15 +3.1
Edwards 5/13 -1.0
McDaniels Hard 4/10 +0.6
Reid Hard 2/7 -2.4
Dillingham 2/7 -2.4
Gobert Open 3/3 +1.8
Conley Hard 2/2 +3.8
Clark 1/2 +0.5
Miller Open 1/2 -0.3

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 9/20 +1.5
Anunoby Open 10/17 +2.3
Hart 7/12 +4.4
Bridges 5/12 -0.8
Towns 5/11 -1.5
McBride 6/10 +2.8
Clarkson 3/6 +0.1
Robinson Open 4/5 +1.0
Yabusele 2/3 +1.4
Hukporti Open 2/2 +1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
NYK
40/83 Field Goals 55/102
48.2% Field Goal % 53.9%
19/40 3-Pointers 19/42
47.5% 3-Point % 45.2%
15/17 Free Throws 8/9
88.2% Free Throw % 88.9%
63.0% True Shooting % 64.6%
38 Total Rebounds 56
9 Offensive 21
22 Defensive 29
30 Assists 32
1.76 Assist/TO Ratio 2.29
17 Turnovers 14
6 Steals 7
2 Blocks 8
14 Fouls 21
40 Points in Paint 62
14 Fast Break Pts 15
21 Points off TOs 29
14 Second Chance Pts 31
26 Bench Points 53
9 Largest Lead 23
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
OG Anunoby
25 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 31.5 MIN
+29.85
2
Julius Randle
32 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 38.0 MIN
+21.94
3
Mitchell Robinson
8 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 16.2 MIN
+20.69
4
Miles McBride
14 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 21.3 MIN
+16.97
5
Donte DiVincenzo
21 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 36.0 MIN
+15.7
6
Josh Hart
18 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 27.5 MIN
+14.79
7
Jalen Brunson
23 PTS · 7 REB · 10 AST · 32.6 MIN
+13.58
8
Anthony Edwards
15 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 28.8 MIN
+11.15
9
Mikal Bridges
13 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 33.1 MIN
+9.76
10
Mike Conley
8 PTS · 0 REB · 6 AST · 18.3 MIN
+9.05
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:19 R. Dillingham bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 114–137
Q4 0:27 G. Yabusele driving Layup (5 PTS) (T. Kolek 2 AST) 114–137
Q4 0:38 L. Miller reverse Layup (2 PTS) (R. Dillingham 4 AST) 114–135
Q4 0:49 TEAM defensive REBOUND 112–135
Q4 0:50 MISS T. Kolek 25' running 3PT 112–135
Q4 0:53 M. Diawara REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 112–135
Q4 0:56 MISS L. Miller 9' driving floating bank Shot 112–135
Q4 1:07 A. Hukporti putback Layup (4 PTS) 112–135
Q4 1:07 A. Hukporti REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 112–133
Q4 1:09 MISS T. Kolek 15' pullup Shot 112–133
Q4 1:19 T. Kolek REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 112–133
Q4 1:22 MISS R. Dillingham 16' pullup Shot 112–133
Q4 1:30 M. Diawara Layup (2 PTS) (P. Dadiet 1 AST) 112–133
Q4 1:42 J. Beringer alley-oop DUNK (2 PTS) (J. Ingles 1 AST) 112–131
Q4 1:54 A. Hukporti cutting finger roll Layup (2 PTS) (T. Kolek 1 AST) 110–131

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 Mikal Bridges 33.1m
13
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

A frustratingly hollow performance where solid defensive metrics (+5.3) were completely undone by offensive inefficiency. He settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint, stalling the half-court flow. This inability to generate high-quality looks ultimately drove a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 32.6m
23
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.7

Heavy offensive usage masked a slightly inefficient shooting night that ultimately yielded a negative net impact (-2.0). While he successfully orchestrated the offense, the sheer volume of missed intermediate jumpers allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. His defensive limitations at the point of attack further compounded the negative rating.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +15.4
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S OG Anunoby 31.5m
25
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+29.9

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, driven by suffocating point-of-attack defense (+7.6) and relentless hustle (+8.4). He paired this elite physical exertion with lethal scoring efficiency, punishing closeouts and finishing strongly at the rim. This elite combination of defensive disruption and offensive capitalization fueled a massive +20.8 net impact.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +10.2
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.3

Poor perimeter shot selection and clunky offensive execution severely hampered his overall effectiveness, dragging his net rating deep into the negative (-7.3). While he secured the glass adequately, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently allowed the defense to pack the paint. The resulting offensive stagnation outweighed his modest defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +8.8
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -9.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
8
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.5

Completely hijacked the game in limited minutes through terrifying interior defense (+9.7) that completely deterred rim attempts. He complemented this defensive anchoring with flawless lob-catching and put-back efficiency, maximizing every offensive touch. This sheer physical dominance in the paint resulted in an astronomical +17.9 net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +11.7
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
Josh Hart 27.5m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.1

Elite transition play and chaotic energy (+6.7 hustle) completely tilted the game's momentum in his team's favor. He broke the opponent's back by uncharacteristically torching them from beyond the arc, punishing defenders who dared to sag off. This blend of grit and unexpected shooting efficiency drove a stellar +8.6 impact.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

A massive, unexpected scoring punch off the bench (+211% vs average) provided critical offensive stabilization. He attacked closeouts decisively and finished with high efficiency, forcing the defense into uncomfortable rotations. Coupled with steady perimeter defense, his aggressive shot creation drove a strong +5.8 net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +64.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Despite injecting a surprising amount of chaotic energy and loose-ball hustle (+4.2) into the second unit, his overall impact hovered just below neutral. The offense lacked structure during his ball-dominant sequences, leading to disjointed possessions. His scoring was adequate, but it didn't translate into cohesive team success.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him nearly invisible during his rotation minutes, dragging his overall impact into the red (-3.5). He failed to leverage his shooting gravity to create space for others, attempting just a single shot. The lack of off-ball movement and defensive presence made it a highly ineffective shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Defensive lapses and a complete lack of hustle metrics (0.0) undermined a perfectly fine shooting performance. He was frequently targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, giving back whatever points he generated on the offensive end. This one-way playstyle resulted in a net negative impact during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.5

A disastrously brief appearance defined by forced shots and empty possessions cratered his net rating (-4.4). He failed to organize the offense and bricked his only attempts, instantly killing the unit's momentum. The complete lack of hustle stats further emphasized a highly ineffective shift.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Defensive missteps (-0.5) during a fleeting appearance dragged his overall impact slightly into the red. He failed to assert himself offensively, functioning merely as a bystander while the clock wound down.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Maximized a tiny window of playing time with aggressive interior finishing, converting both of his looks at the rim. This quick burst of highly efficient scoring, paired with mistake-free defense, generated an outsized +4.5 net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Capitalized on garbage-time minutes by executing his lone offensive opportunity and maintaining solid defensive positioning (+0.9). He avoided mistakes and kept the ball moving, resulting in a tidy, positive net impact for his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
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
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 38.0m
32
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.7

Sustained offensive efficiency drove a massive box score rating, as he consistently punished mismatches to generate high-quality looks. However, a relatively muted defensive impact (+1.1) kept his overall net rating grounded. His sheer scoring gravity remained the focal point of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +25.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.5

Relentless energy defined this outing, with exceptional hustle metrics (+9.7) highlighting his ability to generate extra possessions. His aggressive trigger from beyond the arc punished defensive rotations and stretched the floor beautifully. This two-way activity translated directly to a strong positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 31.6m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

A steep drop-off in scoring aggression from his recent stretch cratered his overall impact (-10.6). While he connected from deep, his inability to finish inside the arc and likely costly turnovers negated any defensive contributions. His lack of offensive gravity stalled the unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Anthony Edwards 28.8m
15
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Continued struggles with interior shot selection and finishing efficiency kept his overall impact mildly negative. Although he remained highly engaged defensively (+5.3) and chased down loose balls, the offense bogged down during his isolation sets. The perimeter shooting was adequate, but he failed to pressure the rim effectively.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 28.2m
7
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Despite providing his usual rim deterrence and solid defensive metrics (+3.9), a severe lack of offensive involvement dragged his overall impact into the red. He failed to command touches in the paint, shrinking the floor for the perimeter players. The defensive anchoring simply couldn't offset the offensive passivity.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +10.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 21.2m
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Errant perimeter shooting derailed his offensive rhythm, resulting in a steep drop-off from his usual scoring production. He salvaged some value through high-activity hustle plays (+4.3) and solid defensive positioning. Ultimately, the bricked jumpers and wasted possessions proved too costly for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -47.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Mike Conley 18.3m
8
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.8

Flawless shooting execution maximized his limited offensive touches, providing a much-needed efficiency boost. However, his overall impact slipped slightly into the negative due to minimal defensive resistance and a lack of disruptive hustle plays. He managed the game well but couldn't shift the momentum on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 138.9%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 12.8m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Operating strictly as a low-usage connector, his modest offensive output was overshadowed by quiet defensive metrics. He showed flashes of energy (+2.4 hustle) but failed to leave a significant imprint on the game's flow. The lack of assertiveness kept his net rating slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.7

Inefficient shot creation against set defenses severely limited his effectiveness during his brief stint. While he competed hard on the defensive end (+2.2), the wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. His inability to finish through contact remains a glaring issue.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Maximized a very short stint by providing immediate defensive resistance (+3.0) and altering shots around the rim. This concentrated burst of energy on the less glamorous end of the floor drove a highly efficient positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 3.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Provided virtually zero resistance or activity during his brief time on the floor, dragging his net impact into the red. His inability to generate any hustle or defensive metrics highlighted a completely passive shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.7
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
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

A brief, mistake-free cameo yielded a perfectly neutral impact rating. He executed his single offensive touch efficiently but lacked the floor time to register any meaningful defensive or hustle statistics.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
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
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan during his limited minutes, failing to attempt a single shot. The lack of scoring aggression resulted in a slight negative impact, as he functioned merely as a passive ball-mover.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0