GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 37.7m
30
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
0.0

Massive volume masked a highly inefficient performance that ultimately washed out to a neutral impact. He dominated the ball but wasted numerous possessions by forcing contested looks and missing badly from deep. The sheer quantity of missed shots negated the value of his high-level playmaking.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 37.7m -19.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 34.2m
12
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.4

A dreadful shooting night severely punished his overall impact score. He settled for contested mid-range jumpers and completely lost his touch from beyond the arc. While his defensive effort remained intact, the offensive inefficiency was a massive anchor on the team's production.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 34.2m -17.7
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Josh Hart 33.6m
17
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.6

Relentless energy and elite defensive metrics fueled a massive positive score. He generated extra possessions through sheer willpower on the glass and capitalized by knocking down open outside looks. The combination of pushing the pace in transition and lockdown defense made him a nightmare matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +10.9
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 33.6m -17.4
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 27.6m
21
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.9

Dominated both ends of the floor with suffocating defense and lethal perimeter marksmanship. His ability to completely erase his primary matchup while punishing defensive rotations from deep drove an elite rating. This was a masterclass in two-way wing play defined by flawless catch-and-shoot execution.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 27.6m -14.4
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.3

Commanded the paint with elite rim deterrence and dominant rebounding. Even with a dip in scoring volume, his sheer physical presence warped the opponent's shot profile at the basket. He created a massive mathematical advantage by securing the offensive glass and anchoring the drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 24.6m -12.8
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Anchored the second unit with fantastic rim protection and high-energy hustle plays. He didn't need touches to be effective, instead generating value by altering shots and securing loose balls. A breakout defensive performance that thoroughly disrupted the opponent's interior rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 22.7m -11.7
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Offensive futility completely tanked his rating as he failed to connect on any of his perimeter looks. Opponents ignored him off the ball, which severely cramped the spacing for the primary creators. Even a solid defensive shift couldn't salvage the damage done by his cold shooting.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 21.3m -11.0
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.8

An absolute black hole offensively that resulted in a catastrophic impact score. He derailed possessions with forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers and failed to convert a single attempt. The complete lack of scoring gravity allowed the defense to load up elsewhere, crippling the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -7.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total -6.0
Avg player in 17.0m -8.8
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Spaced the floor effectively to post a positive rating despite some defensive struggles. His ability to knock down pick-and-pop threes kept the offense humming during his stint. However, slow lateral rotations on the other end prevented his impact score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 10.7m -5.5
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Struggled to leave a positive imprint during a brief rotational turn. He was too passive initiating the offense, allowing the defense to easily blow up sets. The lack of aggression and playmaking thrust resulted in a noticeable dip in team efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 8.1m -4.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Barely saw the floor but managed to drag down his rating with an empty offensive trip. He offered zero resistance or hustle metrics during his brief cameo. A completely forgettable stint that generated slight negative value due to a forced shot.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.3m -0.6
Impact -1.4
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
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Logged purely cardio minutes at the end of the rotation without registering a single meaningful statistic. His presence on the floor was entirely neutral in the box score, but slight rotational disadvantages led to a minor negative grade. He simply filled space until the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 33.6m
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Steady two-way play kept his impact comfortably in the green. He paired aggressive slashing with timely hustle plays to keep offensive possessions alive. The combination of reliable shot creation and off-ball activity provided a stable anchor for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 33.6m -17.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

A sudden freeze in his shooting efficiency tanked his overall rating after a hot multi-game stretch. He provided solid rim protection and active hustle, but bricking a high volume of trail threes stalled the offense too much to stay positive. The defensive effort couldn't fully mask the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 33.5m -17.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 31.8m
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite point-of-attack defense was completely neutralized by a high volume of erratic perimeter shots. He forced the issue offensively, settling for heavily contested looks from deep instead of moving the ball. If his shot selection had matched his defensive intensity, this would have been a dominant outing.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 31.8m -16.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 24.5m
16
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Impact dipped into the red due to defensive lapses and inefficient scoring inside the arc. While his perimeter stroke was working, he struggled to finish through traffic on drives. The lack of defensive resistance ultimately undercut his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 24.5m -12.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Franz Wagner 7.3m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Generated massive value in a highly condensed stint before exiting early. Flawless shot selection and disruptive perimeter defense drove a stellar rating in just seven minutes. He maximized every possession he was on the floor by attacking decisive gaps.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 7.3m -3.7
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.0

A brutal perimeter shooting display severely damaged his overall value despite strong rebounding numbers. Opponents dared him to shoot from outside, and his inability to punish them bogged down the half-court spacing. The defensive metrics were solid, but the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 30.5m -15.9
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
Tyus Jones 20.5m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to dictate the tempo, leading to a slightly negative overall impact. While he knocked down a couple of outside looks, he couldn't generate consistent rim pressure to collapse the defense. The lack of offensive creation ultimately outweighed his steady defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 20.5m -10.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

An absolute offensive cratering drove his rating down, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt. He tried to compensate with relentless hustle and solid rotational defense, but the empty scoring trips were glaring. The complete loss of his usual scoring punch created dead possessions that fueled opponent transition.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -37.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -5.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 17.8m -9.2
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 12.5m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Played perfectly within his role to post a solid positive rating in limited action. He set hard screens, defended the paint without fouling, and took only what the defense gave him. It was a highly efficient, mistake-free stint that stabilized the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 12.5m -6.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Anchored the second unit with disruptive weak-side rotations and active hands. He didn't demand the ball offensively, instead focusing entirely on blowing up opponent actions at the rim. This was a classic low-maintenance, high-defense shift that kept the team afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 10.8m -5.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Noah Penda 5.9m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Made the most of a brief cameo by bringing immediate energy to the floor. He stayed active on the glass and avoided forcing bad shots, resulting in a tidy positive impact. A perfectly executed low-usage shift defined by smart positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 5.9m -3.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Failed to register any positive momentum during his short run, sinking his rating with empty perimeter attempts. The complete lack of hustle stats indicates he was floating rather than impacting the game. He simply couldn't find the rhythm that had fueled his recent hot streak.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 5.7m -3.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Provided an explosive spark off the bench, driving a massive impact spike in under six minutes. He attacked closeouts decisively and held his ground on the defensive end. This rapid-fire scoring burst completely flipped the momentum of the game.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 5.7m -2.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0