GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 40.1m
24
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Scorching catch-and-shoot execution masked underlying issues with defensive miscommunications and poor screen navigation. Even with a brilliant offensive rhythm, his inability to string together crucial stops against dribble penetration kept his overall impact effectively neutral.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 40.1m -23.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Brunson 38.2m
47
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+21.0

An absolute masterclass in pick-and-roll manipulation kept drop defenders constantly off balance and generated massive offensive momentum. His sheer scoring gravity completely bent the defensive scheme, opening up weak-side passing lanes and driving a dominant positive impact.

Shooting
FG 15/26 (57.7%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +42.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.9
Raw total +43.6
Avg player in 38.2m -22.6
Impact +21.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 33.5m
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Locking down the perimeter with elite lateral movement was completely overshadowed by disjointed offensive execution and forced passes into traffic. His inability to fluidly connect the half-court offense resulted in empty possessions that dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 33.5m -19.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Josh Hart 33.3m
13
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.0

Constantly pushing the pace off opponent misses, his elite transition playmaking drove a highly positive impact. A distinct knack for securing long rebounds and immediately initiating the break consistently caught the opposing defense backpedaling.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 33.3m -19.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.0

An extreme reluctance to shoot allowed the defense to aggressively double the guards, completely stalling the team's half-court sets. This passive offensive approach tanked his overall value, overshadowing a solid effort protecting the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 28.8m -17.0
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.8

Suffocating rim protection altered numerous attempts in the paint, anchoring a highly successful defensive stint. On the other end, his vertical spacing and elite screen-setting created massive driving corridors that fueled the team's offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.4
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 22.4m -13.2
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 22.2m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Struggles to orchestrate the offense against intense ball pressure completely unraveled his otherwise solid hustle metrics. An inability to cleanly initiate sets led to stagnant possessions, allowing the defense to dictate the tempo and force rushed decisions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 22.2m -13.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Opponents consistently targeted him in switch actions, bleeding points that entirely negated his quick-burst offensive production. While his isolation scoring was smooth, his tendency to die on screens made him a glaring defensive liability.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 17.9m -10.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Quick defensive rotations during a brief cameo helped maintain the team's structural integrity. Hitting a timely perimeter shot and avoiding major rotational mistakes allowed him to survive his minutes with a slightly positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 3.6m -2.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 35.2m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

A heavy diet of contested pull-up jumpers limited his offensive ceiling, even as his aggressive rim-runs kept the defense backpedaling. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics ultimately pushed him into positive territory, driven largely by disciplined weak-side rotations and timely closeouts.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 35.2m -20.8
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 34.5m
28
pts
19
reb
0
ast
Impact
+17.9

Pristine shot selection and confident catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter completely warped the opponent's defensive rotations. By drawing the opposing rim protector out of the paint, he opened up massive driving lanes while simultaneously delivering a staggering scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.2%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +38.3
Avg player in 34.5m -20.4
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 33.6m
14
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

Offensive stagnation heavily weighed down his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range jumpers against set defenses. His inability to facilitate from the high post bogged down half-court execution, completely negating his otherwise solid weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 33.6m -19.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Davion Mitchell 31.1m
13
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.2

Hidden negatives like poor transition defense and costly live-ball turnovers dragged his net impact deeply into the red despite a smooth offensive flow. His inability to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to consistently collapse the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.4
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 31.1m -18.4
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andrew Wiggins 24.4m
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.7

Struggles to convert open catch-and-shoot opportunities suppressed his offensive value and allowed defenders to sag into the paint. However, his relentless point-of-attack defense and high-effort closeouts kept him near neutral, effectively neutralizing his direct matchup on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +5.9
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 24.4m -14.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
23
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

Excellent footwork in the post allowed him to consistently punish mismatches and generate high-percentage looks in the paint. While his isolation execution was superb, occasional rotational breakdowns on the defensive end kept his overall impact relatively modest.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 33.6m -19.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 17.8m
9
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Maximizing limited touches with smart baseline cuts and decisive ball-swings provided a sudden spark for the second unit. Active hands in the passing lanes consistently disrupted the opponent's rhythm, turning deflections into easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 17.8m -10.6
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.9

Repeatedly missing wide-open corner looks stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to pack the paint. His inability to punish defensive closeouts rendered him a spacing liability, severely dragging down a lineup that desperately needed perimeter gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 17.4m -10.2
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Hesitancy on the ball allowed defenders to sag off, completely clogging the driving lanes for his teammates during a brief stint. Rushing his few offensive touches highlighted his struggle to adjust to the frantic pace of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 12.4m -7.4
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0