GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 33.5m
23
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+11.5

An unexpected barrage from beyond the arc completely altered the opponent's scouting report and stretched their defense to the breaking point. He paired this perimeter explosion with elite defensive anticipation, cutting off passing lanes to generate a massive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +11.8
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 33.5m -18.2
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 30.9m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Hyper-efficient finishing around the basket inflated his traditional metrics, but his actual on-court value was surprisingly neutral. The discrepancy suggests he gave back points through defensive lapses or by failing to generate secondary actions when the initial play broke down.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 30.9m -16.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Coby White 30.4m
25
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Catching fire from deep forced defenders to play him tight, which he ruthlessly exploited with decisive drives to the rim. His aggressive point-of-attack defense further amplified his value, proving he could dictate the flow of the game on both ends.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 30.4m -16.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
20
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.5

Absolute mastery of the pick-and-pop game shredded the opposing frontcourt and opened up driving lanes for everyone else. Pairing that offensive clinic with stellar rim protection and defensive positioning resulted in a dominant, game-changing performance.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 28.9m -15.7
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 22.2m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Struggling to find his rhythm from the perimeter, his inability to stretch the floor bogged down the team's spacing. The significant drop-off from his usual scoring output forced others into tougher shots, driving his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 22.2m -12.1
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Despite knocking down his perimeter looks at a solid clip, his minutes were plagued by defensive miscommunications that bled points. The scoring he provided was entirely negated by the easy opportunities he surrendered on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 25.9m -14.2
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Jones 24.3m
11
pts
1
reb
11
ast
Impact
+10.1

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll carved up the defense, as he consistently made the right read without forcing bad shots. His relentless defensive pressure at the point of attack disrupted the opponent's timing, driving a wildly successful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 24.3m -13.3
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Zach Collins 16.3m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Physical interior defense and a willingness to contest everything at the rim anchored the second unit during his shift. Even with a streaky outside shot, his ability to protect the paint ensured his minutes were a net positive for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 16.3m -8.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Smith 15.9m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

A passive approach on offense limited his ability to punish mismatches inside. While he held his own defensively, the lack of aggression and failure to generate second-chance opportunities resulted in a slightly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 15.9m -8.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Completely invisible on both ends of the floor, his inability to impact the game physically or schematically was glaring. He offered no resistance on defense and his tentative offensive touches actively stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 10.5m -5.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Relegated to a brief garbage-time cameo, he simply didn't have the runway to influence the game in either direction. The slightly negative score reflects a single bad rotation or missed assignment during his fleeting time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
32
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Heavy usage and aggressive shot creation kept the offense afloat for long stretches. Yet, his relatively modest final impact score suggests that this volume came with hidden costs, likely through defensive concessions or empty possessions when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.4%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 32.5m -17.7
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylon Tyson 32.5m
21
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Capitalizing on high-quality looks, he generated massive offensive value through hyper-efficient shot selection to double his usual scoring output. However, his overall impact was dragged down slightly from his raw metrics, indicating some defensive rotations or transition give-backs that allowed opponents to keep pace.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 32.5m -17.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Darius Garland 30.2m
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.9

Inefficient shot selection from inside the arc erased the positive value he generated through exceptional hustle plays. Despite fighting hard for loose balls, his inability to convert in traffic ultimately resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +6.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 30.2m -16.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 27.6m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.4

Dominating the interior with a third consecutive game of elite finishing, he anchored the frontcourt on both ends. His massive defensive and hustle metrics reflect a relentless effort contesting shots at the rim and securing extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 27.6m -15.0
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Dean Wade 21.9m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

A complete lack of offensive aggression severely limited his floor value during his minutes. Missing both of his perimeter looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, which compounded a negative defensive rating to sink his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 21.9m -12.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers and failing to generate rim pressure resulted in a severely depressed overall rating. He simply didn't offer enough resistance on the defensive end or activity in the hustle categories to offset those empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 27.8m -15.0
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Forcing too many outside jumpers cratered his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to off-hook. The lack of interior physicality meant his minutes were a net negative, as he failed to control the glass or punish mismatches inside.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 18.1m -9.7
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.2

Flawless execution on limited offensive touches combined with suffocating defensive pressure to produce a highly efficient stint. He maximized his role by making the right reads and completely shutting down his perimeter assignments.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +6.5
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 17.8m -9.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 17.4m
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Brick after brick from beyond the arc completely stalled the half-court offense when he was on the floor. While his defensive rotations and point-of-attack pressure remained solid, the complete absence of a scoring threat made him a severe liability overall.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 17.4m -9.6
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Failing to connect from the floor during his short rotation, his offensive limitations were glaringly obvious. He managed to survive defensively, but the lack of scoring punch or rebounding presence left a negative mark on the lineup's performance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 7.8m -4.2
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

A brief, entirely unproductive stint was defined by a complete failure to generate any offensive gravity. Missing his only looks and providing zero hustle stats meant his time on the court was essentially empty calories that hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 6.5m -3.5
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1