GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 35.0m
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.7

High-level playmaking was entirely undone by a glaring inability to finish at the rim. He consistently beat the first line of defense but bricked numerous floaters and layups, resulting in empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 35.0m -19.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Ayo Dosunmu 27.3m
4
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.4

Impact cratered due to forcing highly contested looks early in the shot clock. His inability to finish through contact on drives directly sparked long rebounds and easy transition points for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -66.3
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 27.3m -15.0
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Coby White 24.6m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.2

Disastrous shot selection and a total inability to separate from his primary defender wrecked his impact score. He repeatedly settled for off-balance, heavily contested jumpers that bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.9%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 24.6m -13.6
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Matas Buzelis 24.5m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

Elite weak-side rim protection and decisive offensive cutting fueled a dominant performance. He perfectly timed his defensive rotations to erase layups, then immediately beat his man down the floor for easy transition finishes.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.2
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 24.5m -13.5
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Bricklaying from the perimeter and the mid-range completely stalled the offensive engine. Because he couldn't punish drop coverage on pick-and-pops, the defense comfortably packed the paint to neutralize all driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -54.9
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 24.3m -13.5
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jevon Carter 21.7m
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.1

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and decisive perimeter shooting defined his highly impactful minutes. He turned defensive stops into instant offense by confidently stepping into transition threes before the defense could set.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.7
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 21.7m -12.0
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Smothering wing defense partially offset a brutal shooting performance. While his offensive touch was nonexistent, his ability to consistently deny the ball to the opponent's primary scorer kept his rating afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 20.2m -11.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Zach Collins 18.8m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

A complete lack of touch around the basket severely hampered the team's interior scoring. Missing multiple point-blank looks through contact allowed the defense to cheat off him and crowd the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 18.8m -10.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dalen Terry 17.6m
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Relentless ball pressure and elite hustle metrics drove a massive positive swing. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm by blowing up dribble hand-offs and securing crucial 50/50 balls.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 17.6m -9.7
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Maintained a neutral impact by playing strictly within the flow of the offense. He avoided forcing bad shots and stayed disciplined on his defensive rotations, providing stable but unremarkable minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 12.4m -6.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Failed to make any tangible mark during a brief, low-energy stint. He was entirely bypassed in the offensive sets and failed to register a single hustle play to justify his floor time.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Rushed offensive decisions and poor spacing dragged down his limited minutes. He clogged the driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers and forced low-percentage looks when the ball swung his way.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Opportunistic cutting generated a slight positive impact during his brief appearance. He smartly relocated along the baseline to finish dump-off passes when the defense collapsed on drives.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 4.3m -2.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
GSW Golden State Warriors
19
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.0

Elite foul-drawing and methodical pacing in the half-court anchored his massive positive rating. He consistently manipulated his primary defender to collapse the paint, generating high-value looks and dictating the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +49.6
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 28.8m -15.9
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pat Spencer 27.2m
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.0

A lack of scoring gravity negated his solid playmaking reads. Because defenders aggressively sagged off him on the perimeter, the paint became completely clogged during his offensive shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +55.1
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 27.2m -15.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Quinten Post 26.0m
19
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.0

Frontcourt floor-spacing completely broke the opposing defensive scheme and fueled a massive positive swing. By consistently popping to the perimeter and hitting contested deep looks, he dragged rim protectors away from the basket.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 26.0m -14.4
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Will Richard 24.2m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns drove his positive value in limited action. His ability to consistently punish late closeouts from the perimeter forced the defense to stretch, opening up the interior for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +78.3
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 24.2m -13.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Buddy Hield 22.4m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc severely damaged his offensive impact. Forcing contested, early-clock jumpers short-circuited possessions and directly fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 22.4m -12.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.9

Masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages dictated his massive positive impact. He consistently made the right read against trapping defenses, either hitting the roll man or punishing undersized guards from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 28.9m -16.0
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

A failure to establish deep post position or alter shots at the rim drove his negative rating. Opposing bigs easily moved him off his spots, neutralizing his ability to impact the game in the painted area.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 22.0m -12.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Gui Santos 19.6m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Forcing the issue against set defenses derailed his offensive rhythm and tanked his impact score. His repeated attempts to drive into heavy traffic resulted in low-percentage, contested heaves at the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 19.6m -10.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Moses Moody 19.2m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

High-quality shot preparation on the perimeter salvaged an otherwise quiet stint. He maximized his limited touches by strictly taking in-rhythm jumpers off drive-and-kick actions, avoiding forced isolation plays.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 19.2m -10.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Tenacious point-of-attack defense kept his rating near neutral despite a rough shooting night inside the arc. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs, though his tendency to settle for contested floaters hurt the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 35.9%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 17.4m -9.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

An entirely empty stint on the floor provided zero resistance or offensive flow. He failed to register a single deflection or hustle play, allowing the opposition to operate without pressure.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0