GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 38.0m
22
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.9

Dominant perimeter defense (+12.6) and a massive surge in offensive assertiveness (+21.3 Box) fueled a spectacular two-way showing. Consistently blowing up pick-and-roll actions at the point of attack allowed him to translate stops into highly efficient transition scores.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +12.6
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 38.0m -23.6
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Brunson 36.1m
32
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+6.3

Sizzling perimeter shot-making and elite offensive orchestration (+18.8 Box) powered a massive leap over his recent scoring averages. Systematically dismantling drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers kept the opposing defense entirely off-balance.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 36.1m -22.4
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S OG Anunoby 35.6m
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

An abysmal performance from beyond the arc completely torpedoed his overall value (-9.6) despite elite hustle metrics (+7.5). Continuously bricking open spot-up opportunities allowed the defense to pack the paint and stall the offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +7.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 35.6m -22.1
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
21
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.3

Imposing rim protection (+11.0 Def) and commanding box score production (+16.0) drove a highly positive night. Even with a slight dip in shooting efficiency, his ability to control the defensive glass and alter shots in the paint dictated the tempo of the frontcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +11.0
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 31.7m -19.5
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Landry Shamet 20.9m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Efficient spot-up shooting (+9.8 Box) was overshadowed by a lack of defensive resistance (+0.1), resulting in a slightly negative total impact (-1.3). While providing a much-needed scoring punch off the bench, opponents frequently targeted him in isolation to bleed back those gains.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 20.9m -12.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Hart 30.3m
8
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.5

A sharp decline in finishing at the rim tanked his overall value (-4.5) despite characteristic hustle (+4.2) and solid defensive metrics (+4.2). Repeatedly forcing contested drives into traffic squandered possessions and completely offset his playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 30.3m -18.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Microwave scoring efficiency (+10.3 Box) drove a highly positive stint off the bench. Continuously breaking down his primary defender off the dribble injected instant offense into a second unit that desperately needed his isolation shot-creation.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 16.8m -10.4
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

A perfectly neutral outing (-0.0) was salvaged by a much-needed return to form from beyond the arc (+7.7 Box). Providing a steadying presence in the backcourt rotation, he hit timely perimeter shots to punish defensive sagging without giving anything back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 15.7m -9.7
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Offensive passivity severely limited his effectiveness, dragging his total impact into the red (-1.8). Passing up open looks and failing to establish deep post position rendered his adequate defensive positioning (+3.2) largely a moot point.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +36.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 15.0m -9.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Ja Morant 33.5m
16
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-18.5

Severe inefficiency from the floor and forced interior attempts cratered his overall impact (-18.5) despite active playmaking. Settling for heavily contested looks at the rim led to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition runs, completely negating his otherwise solid hustle metrics (+4.3).

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 33.5m -20.7
Impact -18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 8
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

A surprisingly negative overall impact (-7.2) was dragged down by uncharacteristically poor defensive anchoring (+0.4) at the rim. While his active hands generated excellent hustle numbers (+5.5), he struggled to deter penetration during key stretches, allowing opponents to capitalize on interior breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +5.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 29.7m -18.4
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaylen Wells 29.1m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.8

An explosive surge in scoring efficiency (+14.9 Box) anchored a highly positive outing that far exceeded his recent production. He consistently punished sluggish defensive rotations with decisive perimeter shooting, providing a crucial weak-side spark.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 29.1m -18.0
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jock Landale 25.9m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Solid two-way contributions kept his head just above water (+0.2) in a physical frontcourt battle. Excellent interior positioning yielded strong defensive (+5.5) and hustle (+4.5) marks, though a failure to connect from beyond the arc capped his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 25.9m -15.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Elite defensive metrics (+5.5) and active hustle (+4.2) anchored a highly efficient stint despite minimal offensive usage. He locked down the perimeter during his rotation minutes, proving his value through timely closeouts and off-ball disruption rather than shot volume.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -52.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 15.2m -9.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.8

Smothering on-ball pressure (+9.4 Def) was entirely undone by a disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc. His inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, dragging his overall impact into the negative (-1.8) despite his relentless defensive motor.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.4
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 30.2m -18.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
Santi Aldama 30.1m
19
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Near-flawless shot selection and clinical finishing around the basket generated a massive offensive impact (+17.0 Box). Exploiting mismatches in the mid-post and maintaining excellent spacing ensured almost every touch was highly optimized.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 30.1m -18.6
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.0

A slightly negative total impact (-1.0) belies a fundamentally sound performance highlighted by excellent defensive reads (+5.8). Operating efficiently within the flow of the offense kept his baseline high, but a lack of high-leverage 50/50 ball recoveries (+1.1 Hustle) prevented him from swinging the momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.3m -15.1
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Cam Spencer 18.8m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.7

Capitalizing on open looks fueled a sharp turnaround from his recent shooting woes, driving a strong overall rating (+4.7). Moving purposefully without the ball created clean catch-and-shoot opportunities that perfectly maximized his limited rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 18.8m -11.7
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A brief, ineffective cameo resulted in a negative overall score (-2.4) driven by minor defensive lapses (-0.5). Failing to register any meaningful counting stats before being pulled abruptly halted his recent stretch of steady offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -212.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 3.2m -1.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0