GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 32.6m
12
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
-11.2

Impact cratered due to a disastrous finishing night around the basket and blown assignments in transition. Defenders sagged off him completely, daring him to shoot, which entirely bogged down the team's half-court spacing. Despite generating decent defensive metrics, his offensive limitations derailed the unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 32.6m -17.0
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Coby White 29.0m
13
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.6

Errant perimeter shooting severely damaged his overall effectiveness, dragging his net score deep into the negative. He struggled to create separation against switching defenses, resulting in a barrage of forced, late-clock heaves. While he facilitated reasonably well, the sheer volume of empty possessions doomed his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 29.0m -15.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A perfectly neutral outing where solid defensive rebounding was perfectly counterbalanced by a low-volume offensive night. He operated effectively as a hub at the elbows but lacked the aggression to exploit mismatches in the post. The team played the opponent to a dead draw during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 28.6m -14.9
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 34.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 19.7m
10
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Exceptional weak-side rim protection was nearly entirely undone by a brutal shooting slump. He forced the issue offensively, clanking multiple contested looks early in the shot clock which sparked opponent transition opportunities. If he had simply deferred on offense, his elite defensive positioning would have yielded a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 19.7m -10.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 17.8m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, he provided a highly efficient scoring punch by draining his perimeter looks. His off-ball movement consistently punished over-helping defenders, creating easy driving lanes. Even with a slightly negative defensive score, his timely shot-making kept his overall impact positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 17.8m -9.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 24.2m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Masterful pace control and surgical penetration into the paint underpinned a highly successful shift. He relentlessly attacked the seams of the zone defense, collapsing the interior to create high-quality looks. Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient shooting, his steady hand minimized mistakes and maximized possession value.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 24.2m -12.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 23.8m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

Scraped out a slightly positive rating by relying on tenacious on-ball defense and timely corner shooting. Though his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent outings, he avoided forcing bad shots and kept the ball moving. His ability to navigate screens defensively prevented the opponent's guards from gaining downhill momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 23.8m -12.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.4

A brutal combination of poor perimeter execution and defensive lapses resulted in a heavily negative stint. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, exploiting his slow lateral movement to generate easy paint touches. Clanking the vast majority of his looks from beyond the arc meant he couldn't offset the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 22.5m -11.7
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 22.4m
12
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Breaking out of a recent slump, his energetic rim-running and timely floor spacing drove a stellar net impact. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, generating high-percentage looks before the defense could set. His vertical spacing and weak-side blocks fundamentally changed the geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +50.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 22.4m -11.7
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Zach Collins 19.4m
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Highly efficient stretch-big play fueled a massive surge for the second unit. His ability to pop out and knock down trailing threes completely neutralized the opponent's drop coverage. Combined with sturdy post defense, he dictated the terms of engagement on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 19.4m -10.1
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 40.4m
27
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.5

A massive shot diet yielded diminishing returns as he forced the issue offensively, dragging his overall impact slightly below zero. While his perimeter shot-making kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches, the sheer volume of missed drives into traffic fueled empty possessions. He operated as the primary engine, but the inefficiency ultimately muted his raw production.

Shooting
FG 9/24 (37.5%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 40.4m -21.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Paul George 34.5m
15
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite generating solid defensive metrics, his overall impact dipped into the red due to a heavy volume of missed jumpers. Settling for heavily contested midrange looks dragged down his efficiency compared to his recent scoring tear. His perimeter gravity still created spacing, but the lack of interior finishing capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 34.5m -17.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 33.4m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Off-the-charts hustle metrics couldn't salvage a negative overall impact driven by severe perimeter struggles. Forcing contested looks from deep derailed offensive possessions and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. His relentless motor kept him engaged, but poor shot selection ultimately weighed down his stint.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 33.4m -17.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 32.2m
31
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.8

Absolute dominance in the half-court offense fueled a massive positive net rating. He consistently punished single coverage in the post, forcing the defense into rotation and generating high-value scoring opportunities. Even with a lighter defensive load, his sheer offensive gravity dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 32.2m -16.6
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 27.0m
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite defensive positioning and relentless activity on the glass drove a highly positive shift in his minutes. He continues to thrive as a low-usage rim runner, extending his streak of highly efficient shooting nights by strictly taking high-percentage looks. His ability to anchor the paint without requiring touches makes him a seamless fit in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.4
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 27.0m -14.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his rating as he failed to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities. Breaking a streak of efficient outings, his hesitance to attack closeouts stalled the team's ball movement. Without his usual floor-spacing threat, the offense bogged down significantly during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg -42.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 25.9m -13.5
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 16.8m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Strong point-of-attack defense was overshadowed by a rough shooting night from beyond the arc. He struggled to navigate drop coverage, repeatedly settling for contested floaters rather than finding the roll man. The defensive intensity was there, but the wasted offensive possessions kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 16.8m -8.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A completely passive offensive stint left him floating on the perimeter without registering a single shot attempt. While he held his own defensively, his inability to command defensive attention allowed opponents to aggressively double other threats. This lack of offensive participation ultimately resulted in a negative net swing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 10.1m -5.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Brief but effective minutes were defined by his physical presence in the paint and solid rotational defense. Missing uncharacteristic perimeter attempts slightly dented his box score impact, but his sheer size deterred drives to the rim. He managed to keep the team in the positive by controlling the defensive glass during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -58.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 8.0m -4.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 7.5m
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

High-energy closeouts and active hands allowed him to scrape out a positive overall rating despite zero offensive production. He embraced his role as a defensive disruptor, blowing up two pick-and-roll sets that led to shot-clock violations. His raw athleticism masked his lack of polish on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 7.5m -3.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Barely registered a blip during a very short rotational cameo. He made a couple of sound defensive rotations but was entirely bypassed in the offensive sets. Ultimately, it was a neutral stint defined by a lack of touches and safe, conservative positioning.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 4.3m -2.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0