GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 37.1m
21
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.9

Efficient mid-range shot creation and decisive cuts to the basket provided a steady offensive engine. He consistently punished defensive lapses with timely scoring, though a lack of disruptive defensive playmaking limited his overall ceiling. The steady scoring diet kept the offense afloat during crucial stretches of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 37.1m -19.2
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Brunson 36.8m
22
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
0.0

Extreme shot-chucking and a slew of forced isolation plays resulted in a highly inefficient offensive outing that zeroed out his impact. The sheer volume of missed floaters and contested jumpers allowed the opponent to consistently get out in transition. His playmaking gravity was entirely offset by the wasted possessions and defensive vulnerabilities.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 36.8m -19.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
22
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

A heavy volume of missed perimeter shots suppressed what could have been a dominant offensive showing. He bullied mismatches in the post effectively, but settling for contested above-the-break threes bailed out the defense. Solid rebounding and interior presence kept him in the positive, though his shot selection capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 35.3m -18.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Hart 33.8m
5
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.8

Errant transition finishing and a reluctance to shoot open jumpers severely hampered the team's spacing and offensive ceiling. While he crashed the glass with his usual ferocity and defended multiple positions, the offensive dead ends proved too costly. His inability to punish sagging defenders ultimately drove his net impact deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 33.8m -17.6
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S OG Anunoby 31.9m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.5

A disastrous shooting night completely neutralized his typically elite defensive contributions. Bricking wide-open corner threes and forcing contested drives stalled the offensive flow and tanked his overall rating. Even his textbook isolation defense couldn't salvage a performance marred by such severe offensive ineptitude.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 31.9m -16.4
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
21
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+25.0

Absolute dominance on the offensive glass and elite rim running generated a monstrous positive impact. He demolished the opponent's interior defense, creating countless second-chance opportunities while converting lobs with perfect efficiency. This overwhelming physical presence in the paint dictated the terms of the game on both ends.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 91.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.8
Raw total +38.5
Avg player in 26.1m -13.5
Impact +25.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Quick-trigger scoring bursts provided a temporary offensive lift, but defensive misreads in pick-and-roll coverage negated the value. He hunted his own shot effectively in isolation, yet the ball movement stagnated whenever he initiated the offense. Ultimately, the defensive concessions slightly outweighed his efficient scoring output.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 15.8m -8.1
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Tyler Kolek 15.4m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.4

Pervasive struggles to navigate ball pressure and poor point-of-attack defense resulted in a catastrophic net rating. He was consistently targeted on the defensive end, bleeding points while failing to organize the offense effectively. The inability to penetrate the paint or hit open shooters completely derailed the second unit'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 +17.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total -7.4
Avg player in 15.4m -8.0
Impact -15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

A brief but highly effective stint was highlighted by decisive perimeter shooting and solid positional awareness. He capitalized immediately on his lone offensive touch, spacing the floor perfectly from the corner. This flawless execution of a limited role yielded a tidy positive rating in minimal action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +55.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 4.5m -2.3
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
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Rushed decision-making and a lack of offensive rhythm characterized a brief, unproductive appearance. He struggled to integrate into the half-court flow, resulting in a quick negative swing during his minutes. The defensive effort was present, but the offensive disjointedness stood out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 38.1m
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.2

Relentless energy on both ends of the floor resulted in elite hustle metrics that supercharged his overall impact. He consistently generated extra possessions through deflections and aggressive closeouts, completely disrupting the opponent's rhythm. This two-way dominance established him as the primary catalyst for the team's success during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 38.1m -19.7
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tyrese Maxey 37.8m
30
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.9

Perimeter shot creation drove a massive offensive output, though the sheer volume of attempts yielded diminishing returns on overall efficiency. His ability to break down the defense off the dribble created constant pressure, but occasional defensive passivity limited his net positive effect. The scoring gravity was undeniable, even if the defensive resistance was lacking.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +4.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 37.8m -19.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Paul George 33.1m
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.0

Severe offensive struggles and bricked perimeter shots tanked his overall rating despite commendable defensive effort. The sheer volume of missed jumpers dragged down the team's offensive efficiency during his shifts. While his off-ball rotations and hustle metrics were solid, they couldn't offset the damage done by empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 33.1m -17.2
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andre Drummond 32.3m
14
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

An uncharacteristic barrage of perimeter shooting completely altered the geometry of the floor during his minutes. His massive rebounding presence anchored the defense, while the surprising floor spacing kept the opponent off balance. A few defensive lapses in pick-and-roll coverage slightly muted an otherwise highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 32.3m -16.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 17.6m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Highly efficient finishing around the rim fueled a strong positive impact in limited action. His ability to convert high-percentage looks without turning the ball over maximized his offensive value. The lack of defensive playmaking kept his overall score from climbing even higher, but he played his role perfectly.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 17.6m -9.2
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jared McCain 21.1m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Despite strong individual metrics, his overall impact plunged into the negative due to poor lineup synergy and costly defensive miscommunications. He found some success initiating the offense, but ill-timed empty trips allowed the opponent to build momentum. The underlying data suggests his individual production was hollow within the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 21.1m -10.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Offensive invisibility and missed spot-up opportunities resulted a negative overall score despite solid perimeter defense. He worked hard navigating screens and contesting shots, which reflected well in his defensive metrics. However, the inability to punish closeouts or hit open looks made him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 17.9m -9.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Adem Bona 14.8m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Solid rim protection and disciplined verticality anchored a quietly effective defensive stint. He avoided costly fouls while altering shots in the paint, providing exactly what was needed in a reserve role. The offensive impact was minimal, but his defensive positioning kept his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 14.8m -7.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Empty offensive possessions and a failure to convert around the basket severely depressed his overall impact. He struggled to find any rhythm, often forcing contested looks that led to transition opportunities for the opponent. While he offered mild resistance defensively, his inability to score rendered his minutes highly unproductive.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 13.8m -7.2
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Timely perimeter shot-making and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly efficient short-shift performance. He capitalized on every open look generated by the primary ball-handlers, maximizing his offensive value. This opportunistic scoring paired with attentive weak-side defense made him a significant net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 13.7m -7.0
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0