GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Coby White 28.7m
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.3

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely erased the value of his perimeter shot-making. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, forcing defensive breakdowns that tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 28.7m -15.8
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Josh Giddey 26.1m
13
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
-3.8

Telegraphing passes into crowded paint areas led to live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. While his vision in the half-court created some quality looks, the sloppy ball security ultimately dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 26.1m -14.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Anchored the interior with excellent positional defense, consistently deterring drives without fouling. His ability to stretch the floor from the trail spot opened up critical driving lanes for the guards, driving a solid positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 25.7m -14.1
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 22.5m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Looked hesitant against physical coverage, passing up open windows and stalling the offensive rhythm. Despite showing flashes of weak-side rim protection, his lack of assertiveness on the perimeter resulted in a noticeable negative swing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 22.5m -12.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 19.5m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Capitalized on smart off-ball cuts and transition leaks to generate high-value looks at the rim. His disciplined shot selection and timely defensive rotations provided a steady, stabilizing presence during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 19.5m -10.6
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zach Collins 24.4m
10
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Punished mismatches in the post with decisive footwork and soft touch around the basket. His disciplined verticality at the rim helped secure the paint, yielding a steady positive contribution during his floor time.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 24.4m -13.5
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock disrupted the team's offensive flow and led to empty possessions. He tried to compensate with active hands in the passing lanes, but the sheer volume of missed perimeter jumpers kept his impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 23.7m -13.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Smith 22.4m
6
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Made his mark by aggressively contesting shots at the rim and securing defensive rebounds in traffic. That high-level rim protection barely offset a rough shooting night where he failed to convert on several high-percentage interior looks.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 22.4m -12.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tre Jones 22.1m
6
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.3

Struggled to bend the defense, as opponents consistently went under screens and dared him to shoot. Despite bringing excellent energy to loose-ball situations, his inability to capitalize on those sagging coverages stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 22.1m -12.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 21.4m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Smothered opposing ball-handlers at the point of attack, generating crucial stops that fueled transition opportunities. Even though his outside shot wasn't falling, his relentless defensive pressure was enough to secure a net positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 21.4m -11.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Barely saw the floor but managed to negatively impact the game during his brief stint. A rushed, out-of-rhythm jumper and a missed defensive rotation quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -142.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 3.5m -2.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
8
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
-4.3

Poured immense effort into point-of-attack defense and loose ball recoveries, generating massive hustle value. Unfortunately, forcing contested jumpers and completely losing his recent scoring touch dragged his overall rating into the red over a heavy workload.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +6.4
Defense +9.8
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 39.0m -21.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ryan Rollins 35.0m
20
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.6

Picked apart the defense with lethal perimeter shot-making that heavily tilted the floor in his team's favor. His ability to pair that offensive gravity with disciplined closeouts on the other end resulted in a dominant two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.2
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 35.0m -19.5
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S AJ Green 28.0m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Despite bringing excellent energy and defensive resistance on the perimeter, his overall value plummeted due to a severe shooting slump. Clanking a barrage of outside shots completely neutralized his positive hustle metrics, stalling the offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 28.0m -15.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 27.4m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Found his offensive rhythm after a recent dry spell, punishing drop coverages with decisive perimeter shooting. However, his overall net impact remained muted due to giving up ground in the paint during defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 27.4m -15.2
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
29
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.4

Utterly dominated the interior with relentless rim pressure that forced defensive collapses and generated wide-open looks for teammates. His massive offensive efficiency drove a stellar positive impact, while his length disrupted passing lanes on the other end to secure the high rating.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 39.3%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 24.7m -13.6
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Bobby Portis 24.2m
17
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.2

Bullied opponents on the glass to generate crucial second-chance opportunities and establish physical dominance. His stellar defensive positioning and relentless motor completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt, driving a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.0
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 24.2m -13.3
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Kuzma 23.1m
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Settled for low-percentage, contested midrange looks that bailed out the defense and stifled offensive momentum. While he provided adequate weak-side rebounding, the inefficient shot diet kept his net rating slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 23.1m -12.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gary Harris 22.0m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Floated through his minutes without making any tangible imprint on the offensive flow. A lack of aggression and failure to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off, severely clogging the half-court spacing and tanking his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 22.0m -12.1
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jericho Sims 16.6m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Operated strictly as a lob threat and rim-runner, taking zero risks offensively. While he executed his narrow role perfectly, his inability to command defensive attention outside the restricted area limited his overall influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 16.6m -9.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1