GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 34.2m
18
pts
12
reb
11
ast
Impact
+9.6

Elite connective passing and relentless rebounding from the guard position drove a massive positive impact. He dictated the pace flawlessly in transition, consistently finding cutters before the defense could set up. Pairing that offensive orchestration with highly disruptive perimeter defense made him the engine of the lineup.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense +10.9
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 34.2m -21.9
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Coby White 31.3m
20
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.2

Chucking low-percentage perimeter shots completely tanked his overall impact despite decent defensive metrics. He repeatedly settled for early-clock, contested triples instead of initiating the offense, killing the team's rhythm. While he fought hard over screens defensively, the empty offensive possessions fueled opponent transition runs.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 31.3m -20.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Matas Buzelis 29.3m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Phenomenal weak-side rim protection nearly salvaged a brutal shooting performance. He consistently bricked wide-open spot-up threes, which stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to pack the paint. His relentless closeouts prevented a worse net rating, but the offensive inefficiency was too heavy to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +10.2
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 29.3m -18.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Ayo Dosunmu 29.0m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Clanking open perimeter looks and forcing contested drives completely derailed his offensive value. Even though he navigated screens well at the point of attack, his inability to convert on the other end crippled the team's spacing. The stark drop-off in his scoring efficiency allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 29.0m -18.7
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
28
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.3

Absolute mastery of the pick-and-pop game shredded the opponent's drop coverage and drove a monstrous impact score. He punished mismatches in the post with surgical precision, generating high-quality looks on nearly every touch. Adding solid positional defense and rebounding dominance simply amplified an already flawless offensive clinic.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +32.6
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.7
Raw total +41.6
Avg player in 27.0m -17.3
Impact +24.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Jones 26.1m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Extreme passivity on offense allowed the defense to completely ignore him and trap the primary ball-handlers. He frequently picked up his dribble too early against pressure, stalling out half-court sets and leading to late-clock grenades. Despite decent hustle numbers, his inability to bend the defense doomed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 26.1m -16.7
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Getting hunted in pick-and-roll switches erased the value of his efficient offensive touches. Opponents relentlessly targeted his lateral slowness on the perimeter, bleeding points that dragged his net score into the red. A lack of aggressive off-ball movement also limited his usual gravity as a floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 19.3m -12.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Smith 19.2m
9
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Dominant work on the offensive glass salvaged a wildly inefficient shooting night. He forced far too many contested looks from the perimeter, but his ability to generate second-chance opportunities kept his impact positive. Solid interior contests further masked his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 19.2m -12.3
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jevon Carter 10.7m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A complete lack of offensive creation rendered him a liability despite his trademark point-of-attack pressure. He failed to organize the second unit, resulting in stagnant possessions and forced shots. His defensive tenacity simply wasn't enough to outweigh the offensive dead weight.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 10.7m -6.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Capitalizing on brief rotational minutes, he provided a quick spark by converting on timely backdoor cuts. His energy on the offensive glass created extra possessions that nudged his impact into the green. However, a few missed defensive rotations kept his overall score modest.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 10.0m -6.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Looked completely lost during a brief stint, blowing a key defensive assignment that led to an easy layup. Rushing his only shot attempt highlighted his lack of rhythm in the flow of the offense. The short leash was justified by the immediate negative swing when he stepped on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 3.9m -2.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Corey Kispert 36.9m
20
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.3

A massive scoring surge fueled his positive impact, capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot opportunities to stretch the floor. However, his overall net rating lagged behind his raw production due to getting caught on screens during late-clock defensive possessions. His gravity as a perimeter threat completely opened up the driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 36.9m -23.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyshawn George 35.8m
17
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite defensive instincts and relentless activity on the glass completely salvaged a rough shooting night. He consistently blew up opponent pick-and-rolls by using his length in the passing lanes. That high-motor defensive disruption generated enough transition opportunities to overcome his half-court offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +11.7
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 35.8m -22.9
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Alex Sarr 27.9m
16
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Heavy volume masked brutal shooting inefficiency, dragging his overall impact into the red despite a strong defensive showing. His elite rim protection and weak-side contest rate kept the interior secure. Unfortunately, forcing contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock squandered several critical offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.9
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 27.9m -17.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 27.1m
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.2

Scoring volume provided a superficial boost, but his inability to contain dribble penetration severely compromised the team's defensive shell. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted him in isolation during the second half, bleeding points that negated his offensive output. Settling for heavily contested pull-ups rather than moving the ball further suppressed his net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 27.1m -17.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Bilal Coulibaly 25.1m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.7

Impact cratered due to passive offensive positioning and a stark drop in scoring volume compared to his recent stretch. He struggled to stay in front of his primary matchup on the perimeter, leading to defensive breakdowns that erased his modest hustle contributions. A lack of aggressive downhill drives allowed the defense to completely ignore him in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 25.1m -16.1
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.1

Poor shot selection and defensive lapses compounded to tank his overall impact. He repeatedly got burned on backdoor cuts, failing to track his man off the ball. Forcing contested floaters in traffic rather than resetting the offense stalled multiple crucial possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.7
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 24.0m -15.4
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Total offensive invisibility broke his streak of efficient scoring, leaving the team playing four-on-five on that end. He managed to stay afloat through sheer effort, generating crucial deflections and loose-ball recoveries to boost his hustle metrics. Still, passing up open corner looks killed the offensive spacing and dragged his net score slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 23.1m -14.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Anchoring the paint with phenomenal verticality drove a stellar overall impact score. He deterred multiple drives at the rim without fouling, altering the opponent's entire shot profile when he was on the floor. Pairing that interior presence with timely offensive spacing made him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense +12.5
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 20.1m -12.9
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
Cam Whitmore 17.5m
20
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

A hyper-efficient scoring burst in limited minutes provided a massive jolt to the second unit. He relentlessly attacked closeouts, finishing through contact at the rim to maximize his per-minute value. This downhill aggression forced the defense into early rotations, completely shifting the momentum during his second-quarter stint.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 17.5m -11.2
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 2.5m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely saw the floor, resulting in a negligible statistical footprint. His brief stint was marred by a missed rotation that led to an open perimeter look for the opponent. Unable to find any rhythm, his usual scoring punch was completely absent.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0