GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 30.9m
33
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.5

An absolute masterclass in offensive creation fueled a massive +17.5 impact score. He punished drop coverage relentlessly with a barrage of pull-up threes, breaking the game open while maintaining excellent efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +55.2
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +35.2
Avg player in 30.9m -17.7
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Hart 27.8m
8
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.5

Elite defensive metrics (+5.2) were undone by a complete lack of perimeter gravity. Defenses dared him to shoot, and his inability to connect from deep bogged down the half-court spacing enough to drag his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +60.2
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 27.8m -15.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 22.7m
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Uncharacteristically low defensive engagement (+0.8) and a dip in scoring aggression led to a surprisingly poor net rating. He faded into the background for long stretches, failing to leave his usual physical imprint on the wings.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 22.7m -13.1
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.7

Dominated the game through lethal floor-spacing and surprisingly stout interior defense (+5.8). His ability to stretch the floor from the center position completely warped the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 22.3m -12.8
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 19.9m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Surgical shot selection inside the arc generated a steady, positive impact. While the three-point shot wasn't falling, his mistake-free execution and timely cuts kept the offense humming smoothly.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +50.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 19.9m -11.5
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.1

Despite doubling his recent scoring average, erratic shot selection capped his overall effectiveness. The volume-heavy approach led to empty possessions that offset his surprisingly solid defensive metrics (+3.6).

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 31.0m -17.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

A volcanic eruption from beyond the arc completely flipped his recent slump and devastated the opposing bench. His catch-and-shoot gravity warped the defensive rotations, acting as the primary catalyst for the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 21.7m -12.5
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Offensive touches were minimal, but he completely controlled the paint to generate a massive defensive impact (+8.7). His rim deterrence and relentless screen-setting provided immense hidden value that the box score barely captured.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +41.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.7
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 16.0m -9.2
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 14.3m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Struggled to dictate the tempo during his minutes, leading to a negative net rating. Even with a slight uptick in scoring efficiency compared to recent games, his inability to consistently break down the defense stalled the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 14.3m -8.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Operated strictly on the periphery of the offense, resulting in a muted overall impact. Solid defensive rotations kept him near neutral, but a severe lack of offensive aggression prevented him from moving the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 12.4m -7.1
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Defensive lapses (-1.1) in the frontcourt negated a perfectly efficient shooting stint. He gave up too much ground in the pick-and-roll, allowing easy looks that quickly erased his minor offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 12.0m -6.9
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Punished mismatches inside to generate a highly efficient scoring punch off the bench. His physical interior finishes broke a recent shooting slump and easily outweighed his minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 9.1m -5.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 34.0m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.3

Heavy minutes amplified the damage of a highly inefficient shooting night. He forced too many contested looks from the perimeter, dragging down his overall effectiveness despite showing flashes of defensive engagement.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 34.0m -19.6
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Keyonte George 27.8m
18
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.7

Playmaking value and defensive activity nearly balanced out a slightly negative overall score. His overall impact hovered around neutral because the offensive creation was offset by empty possessions and missed opportunities inside the arc.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -54.1
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 27.8m -16.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Lauri Markkanen 26.4m
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Solid overall positive impact driven by a high-volume offensive burden. Despite some inefficiency from the floor, his ability to generate secondary contributions through hustle and steady defense kept his net rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -55.3
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 26.4m -15.3
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 19.5m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Defensive anchoring (+5.8) wasn't enough to salvage a negative overall impact score. A lack of offensive assertiveness and low usage severely limited his ability to influence the game on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 19.5m -11.1
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 18.6m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

A massive regression to the mean cratered his overall impact after a scorching previous outing. Brutal perimeter variance completely erased any value he provided through active hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 18.6m -10.8
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

An abrupt end to his highly efficient five-game stretch tanked his offensive value. While his defensive metrics remained elite (+5.5), forcing uncharacteristic shots from the perimeter dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 30.0m -17.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-level offensive orchestration drove a strong positive impact. He manipulated the defense perfectly, pairing near-flawless shooting efficiency with excellent primary playmaking to elevate the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 23.7m -13.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

Improved perimeter efficiency wasn't enough to overcome quiet stretches off the ball. Despite finding his stroke from deep, a lack of supplementary hustle or defensive disruption kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 19.1m -11.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 16.5m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided a stabilizing veteran presence in limited minutes. Efficient floor-spacing and active hustle plays allowed him to post a slightly positive net impact during his short stints.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -57.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 16.5m -9.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A sharp drop-off in scoring volume from his recent hot streak resulted in a perfectly neutral impact score. He struggled to find his usual rhythm offensively, though decent hustle metrics prevented him from slipping into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -69.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 12.3m -7.1
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Capitalized on a brief rotation opportunity with a highly efficient offensive burst that far exceeded his recent averages. Smart positional defense and mistake-free execution maximized his value in just a single quarter of action.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 12.0m -6.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0