GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Miles McBride 35.1m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Sizzling catch-and-shoot execution from deep was undone by unseen negatives, likely a string of costly turnovers or blown defensive assignments. He shattered his recent scoring averages but struggled to maintain overall floor stability when pressured by longer defenders.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 35.1m -19.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Hart 35.0m
20
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.4

An absolute masterclass in two-way impact, driven by elite rebounding traffic and hyper-efficient perimeter shooting. His ability to grab defensive boards and immediately ignite the fast break completely overwhelmed the opposition's transition defense.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +34.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +10.4
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 35.0m -19.3
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Brunson 33.7m
18
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.0

A disastrous shooting night characterized by forced isolation jumpers and smothered drives tanked his overall value. The sheer volume of clanked shots and stalled possessions against aggressive blitzes far outweighed his playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 33.7m -18.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 33.4m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Methodical shot selection and suffocating wing defense anchored his positive overall impact. He consistently punished defensive closeouts with decisive drives, taking exactly what the scheme conceded without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 33.4m -18.7
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
22
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Defensive foul trouble and sloppy turnovers likely wiped out a highly productive scoring night. He dominated his primary matchup in the post, but gave back significant value by gifting the opponent easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 31.0m -17.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Reckless shot selection from the perimeter and forced offensive actions cratered his net impact. He hijacked the offense for long stretches, settling for heavily contested threes instead of moving the ball against the zone.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 21.5m -12.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
15
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.8

Utter dominance on the offensive glass created a massive possession advantage that drove his high impact score. Even with his scoring touch vanishing, his sheer physical presence in the paint dictated the terms of engagement and generated crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +52.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 16.8m -9.3
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 14.3m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Smart defensive rotations and timely passing kept him in the green despite a clunky shooting performance. He managed the game pace well, ensuring the offense didn't stagnate when the primary ball-handlers sat.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 14.3m -8.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Bully-ball drives and solid screen-setting created consistent advantages for the second unit. He leveraged his physical frame perfectly against smaller defenders on switches to generate high-quality looks at the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 9.9m -5.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Made his brief minutes count by setting hard screens and protecting the restricted area. He didn't need to touch the ball to positively influence the game's physicality during a short rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Looked completely out of sync during a brief cameo, missing his only looks and blowing defensive coverages. His inability to quickly adapt to the game's speed resulted in a sharp negative swing in just a few possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 3.6m -2.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Executed his role perfectly in garbage time by securing loose balls and maintaining defensive integrity. He avoided mistakes and kept the ball moving to bleed the clock efficiently against the opposing deep reserves.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
19
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.7

Impact cratered due to a barrage of live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses that erased his stellar offensive production. His perimeter shot-making off high pick-and-rolls was a bright spot, but he gave too much back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 34.8m -19.3
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 32.1m
14
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-17.9

A massive negative impact score was driven by highly inefficient isolation attempts and a slew of live-ball turnovers that fueled transition breaks. His shot selection was heavily contested by aggressive wing defenders, completely short-circuiting the half-court execution whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 49.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 32.1m -17.8
Impact -17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Scottie Barnes 31.5m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.3

High-level defensive engagement and relentless hustle plays kept his impact positive even with a high volume of missed interior shots. He found a rhythm from beyond the arc to punish drop coverage, providing a crucial floor-spacing element during the third quarter.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 31.5m -17.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ja'Kobe Walter 21.3m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Errant decisions and wasted perimeter possessions negated a fundamentally solid defensive shift. He struggled to find clean looks from deep against switching schemes, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 21.3m -11.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jamison Battle 11.2m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Missed perimeter looks and empty possessions dragged his overall impact into the red despite decent defensive metrics. His inability to stretch the floor off the bench against second-unit closeouts stalled the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -53.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 11.2m -6.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Phenomenal defensive positioning and consistent hustle on the glass salvaged his night after his jump shot completely abandoned him. He bricked all his perimeter attempts against late closeouts, forcing him to rely purely on energy plays to stay on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.0
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 27.1m -15.0
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
11
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Surgical efficiency around the basket and excellent offensive rebounding fueled a highly productive stint. He continues to exploit frontcourt mismatches in the paint, maintaining a stellar streak of high-percentage finishing through contact.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 22.1m -12.2
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Gradey Dick 17.6m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

A lack of offensive assertiveness and poor spacing gravity severely hindered his effectiveness. While he chipped in with timely hustle plays, his inability to generate perimeter threats allowed the defense to collapse inside and stifle driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 17.6m -9.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 16.9m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Capitalized on limited touches by finishing strongly at the rim and cutting effectively off the ball. His disciplined defensive rotations helped stabilize the perimeter defense during a crucial second-half stretch, proving his value without needing high usage.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 16.9m -9.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 16.6m
2
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.0

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless loose-ball recoveries drove a highly positive impact despite an absolutely brutal shooting night. He acted as a defensive menace against opposing ball-handlers, completely disrupting their offensive sets during a pivotal second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -47.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +7.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 16.6m -9.3
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Forced multiple bad shots in a very short stint, immediately putting the offense at a disadvantage. His energetic defensive pressure wasn't enough to offset the empty offensive possessions he generated against the opposing bench unit.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 4.8m -2.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Provided a brief but stable presence inside, using his length to alter shots and secure contested boards. He played within himself during his short first-half rotation, avoiding costly mistakes while setting solid screens.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 4.1m -2.3
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0