GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 33.1m
13
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.1

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
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 33.1m -20.9
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
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
-1.9

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
Offense +12.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 32.6m -20.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
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
+20.8

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
Offense +24.8
Hustle +8.3
Defense +7.6
Raw total +40.7
Avg player in 31.5m -19.9
Impact +20.8
How is this calculated?
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
-7.3

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
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 31.3m -19.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
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
+17.9

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
Offense +16.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +9.7
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 16.2m -10.2
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
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
+8.6

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
Offense +15.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 27.5m -17.3
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
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
+5.8

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
Offense +15.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 21.3m -13.4
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
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
-1.1

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
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 15.7m -9.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
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
-3.5

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
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 11.6m -7.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
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
-1.9

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
Offense +4.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 8.6m -5.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
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
-4.4

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
Offense -2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 3.3m -2.1
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

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
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 2.4m -1.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

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
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
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
+4.5

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
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 2.4m -1.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 38.0m
32
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

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
Offense +22.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 38.0m -23.9
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
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
+5.7

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
Offense +13.6
Hustle +9.7
Defense +5.1
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 36.0m -22.7
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
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
-10.6

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
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 31.6m -20.0
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
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
-2.1

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
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 28.8m -18.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
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
-4.6

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
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 28.2m -17.8
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
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
-6.5

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
Offense -1.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 21.2m -13.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
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
-1.0

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
Offense +9.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 18.3m -11.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
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
-1.6

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
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 12.8m -8.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
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
-1.2

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
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 11.9m -7.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

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
Offense +2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 3.3m -2.1
Impact +0.2
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
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

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
Offense +1.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 3.3m -2.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

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
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 3.3m -2.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
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
-1.6

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
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.3m -2.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0