GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Ayo Dosunmu 36.1m
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly positive defensive score. His offensive efficiency dipped due to contested drives in traffic, but he compensated by generating extra possessions through sheer hustle. The gritty defensive effort kept his head above water despite the shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.6
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 36.1m -19.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Josh Giddey 36.0m
28
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+15.0

Masterfully dictated the game's tempo by dissecting the defense with elite vision and highly efficient interior finishing. His ability to secure defensive boards and immediately ignite the fast break overwhelmed the opposition. This dominant two-way orchestration resulted in a massive spike from his usual production.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.0
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 36.0m -19.3
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

A brutal shooting night from all three levels cratered his offensive value and wasted numerous half-court sets. He continued to fire away from the perimeter despite a cold stroke, severely damaging the team's offensive flow. Although he provided decent interior rebounding and positional defense, the sheer volume of missed shots defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 33.4m -17.8
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Matas Buzelis 32.8m
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Forced the issue from beyond the arc, clanking multiple outside shots that led to long rebounds and transition opportunities for the opponent. While he managed to find some success attacking closeouts, the poor shot selection from deep was costly. His defensive rotations were solid, but couldn't erase the damage done by empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 32.8m -17.5
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Julian Phillips 28.3m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Inefficient finishing around the basket dragged down his offensive rating and stalled out possessions. He partially redeemed himself with switchable perimeter defense that frustrated opposing wings. Ultimately, the inability to convert manageable looks at the rim kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 28.3m -15.2
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Broke out of a severe offensive slump by capitalizing on high-quality spot-up opportunities from the corners. His physical presence on the defensive end disrupted opposing wings and generated vital hustle metrics. A disciplined approach to shot selection completely reversed his recent negative trends.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 23.3m -12.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Dalen Terry 18.0m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Provided a crucial spark of energy by crashing the glass and securing extra possessions in traffic. He stayed within his role offensively, taking only high-percentage looks near the basket. Active defensive rotations and timely closeouts solidified a highly effective rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 18.0m -9.6
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jevon Carter 16.2m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Settled for contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock, resulting in empty possessions that killed offensive momentum. His typically disruptive perimeter defense was strangely muted, failing to generate the turnovers needed to offset his shooting woes. The combination of poor shot selection and quiet defense led to a noticeable negative swing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 16.2m -8.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Failed to make a tangible imprint on the game during his short rotational burst. He was easily moved off his spots defensively and couldn't create separation on the other end. The brief appearance was characterized by a lack of physicality and urgency.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -68.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 7.9m -4.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Looked lost during his brief time on the floor, struggling to track his assignments in pick-and-roll coverage. The lack of offensive involvement combined with defensive mistimings quickly put his team at a disadvantage. A sharp departure from his recent efficiency, defined entirely by defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.5
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 6.8m -3.6
Impact -3.6
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
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Logged just over a minute of garbage time, making a quick read to keep the offense flowing. His brief cameo was too short to generate any meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 35.5m
14
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+16.9

Anchored the interior with stifling rim protection and active hands that generated significant defensive value. His flawless shot selection as a roll man maximized offensive efficiency without demanding unnecessary touches. Operating as an unexpected playmaking hub from the high post further amplified his massive two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +12.8
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 35.5m -18.9
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 34.0m
20
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

A sudden perimeter explosion completely flipped his recent offensive trajectory and severely punished defensive drop coverages. While his outside stroke was the primary catalyst for a massive box-score surge, a relatively quiet defensive presence kept his overall net impact grounded. He capitalized brilliantly on open catch-and-shoot looks to break out of his slump.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 34.0m -18.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
33
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.1

Elite shot-making from the perimeter stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point and drove a massive offensive rating. His scoring footprint was complemented by solid positional rebounding that limited second-chance opportunities for the opponent. The combination of high-volume efficiency and consistent defensive engagement resulted in a dominant overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 33.6m -17.9
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Egor Dëmin 25.0m
10
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.8

Struggled to find a rhythm inside the arc, missing contested looks that led directly to empty possessions. He offered adequate defensive positioning, but a lack of physicality on the glass limited his ability to secure loose balls. The overall negative value stemmed primarily from inefficient scoring attempts in heavy traffic.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 25.0m -13.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tyrese Martin 21.5m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Errant perimeter shooting severely dragged down his offensive utility and stalled half-court momentum. Despite providing decent resistance on the defensive end, the inability to convert from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. Poor shot selection ultimately outweighed his rotational defensive efforts.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 21.5m -11.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Failed to replicate his recent scoring punch, settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking the rim. While he flashed active hands in passing lanes to generate some hustle value, the overall offensive passivity hurt the team's spacing. A noticeable drop in aggression defined his subpar outing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 25.5m -13.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Danny Wolf 24.5m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.3

Defensive lapses and an inability to anchor the paint allowed opponents to capitalize on high-percentage interior looks. Even though he converted his few offensive touches efficiently, his lack of resistance on the other end created a massive negative swing. The performance was defined by being repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 24.5m -13.1
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
Ben Saraf 14.6m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Found himself marginalized offensively, taking a backseat in the scoring hierarchy compared to his usual volume. However, he maintained value through disciplined point-of-attack defense that disrupted opposing ball-handlers. His quiet offensive night was nearly offset by his reliable containment on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 14.6m -7.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Drake Powell 13.4m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

A lack of off-ball movement rendered him largely invisible on the offensive end. He failed to generate any meaningful hustle metrics, allowing 50/50 balls to slip away to the opposition. The resulting negative impact reflects a passive shift where he struggled to influence the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 13.4m -7.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.3

Completely controlled the painted area defensively during his brief stint on the floor. His physical box-outs and rim deterrence suffocated opponent drives, driving a massive positive swing without needing to score. This was a masterclass in maximizing limited minutes through sheer defensive force.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +12.0
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 12.6m -6.8
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0