GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Kevin Huerter 33.5m
23
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.6

Relentless off-ball sprinting through screens completely scrambled the opponent's defensive coverages. His quick trigger coming off dribble hand-offs punished drop schemes and ignited the offense. Executing team defensive concepts flawlessly allowed his scoring outbursts to directly translate to a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 33.5m -20.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Jones 33.2m
20
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.7

Masterful probing of the pick-and-roll allowed him to consistently get two feet into the paint and collapse the defense. He balanced his own floater game perfectly with finding shooters spotting up in the corners. Tenacious ball pressure against the opposing point guard further solidified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 33.2m -19.7
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.5

A steady diet of contested push shots and flat hook shots over length resulted in a highly inefficient offensive output. His inability to establish deep post position bailed out the opposing frontcourt and led to empty possessions. Despite securing the defensive glass, the sheer volume of wasted offensive touches drove his negative score.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 28.6m -17.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 24.8m
15
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Decisive spot-up shooting and timely baseline cuts punished a defense that was caught ball-watching. He managed to find soft spots in the zone without demanding touches, keeping the offensive flow intact. However, a tendency to get lost on defensive rotations kept his overall impact relatively flat.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 24.8m -14.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Isaac Okoro 20.8m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.8

An inability to hit wide-open corner attempts allowed the defense to completely abandon him and pack the paint. This spacing disaster choked off driving lanes for the primary creators. Furthermore, his normally elite point-of-attack defense slipped, allowing straight-line blow-bys that ruined his net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 20.8m -12.4
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 33.0m
20
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.5

Pace-pushing aggression caught the transition defense sleeping and generated a slew of easy layups. His downhill attacks forced the defense to collapse, opening up secondary passing windows. Fighting fiercely through ball screens on the other end disrupted the opponent's timing and fueled his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 33.0m -19.5
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

His refusal to take wide-open shots repeatedly stalled the half-court engine and forced late-clock bailouts. By passing up catch-and-shoot opportunities, he allowed his defender to play free safety and clog the driving lanes. Even a highly disruptive, switch-heavy defensive performance couldn't salvage the damage done by this passivity.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 25.2m -15.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
Jalen Smith 21.4m
11
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Tremendous effort on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that salvaged an otherwise inefficient shooting night. He consistently out-hustled opposing bigs, keeping possessions alive through sheer physical will. Maintaining disciplined verticality at the rim deterred several drives, edging his overall impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 21.4m -12.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Aimless wandering through the offensive sets ruined the team's spacing and led to broken plays. His complete lack of assertiveness turned his minutes into empty cardio, allowing the defense to play five-on-four. Failing to register any meaningful defensive events left him as a clear negative during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 9.1m -5.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

A quick burst of instant offense off the bench injected life into a stagnant second unit. He confidently stepped into transition pull-ups to punish retreating defenders. Applying his trademark full-court ball pressure disrupted the opposing backup guards and maximized his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 8.1m -4.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

A hard-nosed, straight-line drive to the rim injected immediate energy during garbage-time minutes. Playing with high urgency against a relaxed defense allowed him to quickly get on the board. This brief but flawless execution of his role yielded a quick positive bump.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 36.8m
21
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.7

His tendency to settle for heavily contested perimeter jumpers bailed out a defense that was struggling to contain his drives. This poor shot selection short-circuited multiple possessions and fueled opponent run-outs. Defensive lapses against straight-line drives further dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 36.8m -21.9
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
38
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+23.2

A barrage of deep perimeter strikes shattered the opponent's drop coverage and opened massive driving lanes for his guards. This outside scoring gravity was paired with terrifying rim protection that deterred drives before they even started. The sheer versatility of his shot profile made him impossible to scheme against.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +30.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.2
Raw total +44.6
Avg player in 35.9m -21.4
Impact +23.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 3
S Stephon Castle 31.8m
19
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+8.2

Constant downhill rim pressure collapsed the defensive shell, allowing him to spray passes to open shooters. Even with some erratic finishing in traffic, his ability to dictate the pace and generate high-quality looks kept the offense humming. Active hands at the point of attack fueled several easy transition scores.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 31.8m -18.8
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 27.9m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite strong positional defense and solid hustle metrics, his reluctance to hunt his own shot limited his overall effectiveness. He passed up multiple open looks on the perimeter, bogging down the half-court flow. His defensive rotations were sharp, but it wasn't enough to overcome his passive offensive approach.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.4
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 27.9m -16.6
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Devin Vassell 21.2m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Severe lack of aggression cratered his overall value, as he attempted a fraction of his usual shots. The resulting offensive void forced teammates into tougher late-clock situations. Defensively, he offered little resistance to offset his disappearing act on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 21.2m -12.6
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

A disastrous shooting slump from the corners destroyed the team's spacing, allowing defenders to freely pack the paint. This inability to connect completely stalled the half-court offense and negated his solid weak-side defensive rotations. The sheer number of empty possessions proved too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -9.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 22.3m -13.2
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Luke Kornet 20.1m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.1

Surgical execution as a roll man punished the opponent's aggressive blitzes on the perimeter. He sealed his man early and converted every interior touch, providing a massive efficiency boost. Disciplined drop coverage and verticality at the rim ensured his offensive gains held up defensively.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 20.1m -12.0
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Physical, straight-line drives into the chest of rim protectors generated high-efficiency looks and kept the offense on schedule. By entirely cutting out forced mid-range jumpers, he maximized his touches. Sturdy post defense against larger wings secured his positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 19.3m -11.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Extreme hesitation when catching the ball on the perimeter allowed the defense to reset and killed the offensive flow. Passing up driving angles forced teammates into desperate late-clock isolations. While his switchability on defense was useful, his offensive invisibility made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 10.2m -6.0
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Defensive lapses on back-door cuts surrendered easy layups and tanked his defensive rating. Offensively, he failed to punish closeouts, settling for contested looks that sparked opponent fast breaks. A single connected deep ball did little to mask his struggles with off-ball awareness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 7.0m -4.2
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Poor shot selection early in the clock wasted valuable possessions during his brief rotation. He struggled to process the speed of the game, leading to rushed offensive sequences. A lack of defensive playmaking left him unable to offset those empty trips.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.8m -2.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

His role as a pure dribble-handoff hub without ever looking at the rim allowed his defender to completely ignore him. This lack of scoring gravity clogged the paint and negated his passing vision. He avoided catastrophic mistakes but failed to generate any real advantage.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 3.8m -2.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0