GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Despite highly efficient scoring from all three levels, defensive limitations (-1.6 total) undermined his offensive production. Opponents consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points that negated his strong box score output (+12.8). The inability to string together stops against quicker bigs ultimately resulted in a slightly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 30.0m -17.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Matas Buzelis 24.0m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Inefficient volume shooting dragged his net rating down, as he burned through possessions with low-percentage attempts. While he found some success from deep, the overall shot selection was forced and disrupted the offensive flow. Minor hustle contributions couldn't mask the cost of his missed shots during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -47.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 24.0m -13.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 20.0m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Offensive invisibility completely tanked his impact score, as he failed to convert any of his perimeter looks. Defenders actively ignored him on the outside, which severely cramped the floor for his teammates and stalled half-court sets. Even his usually reliable defensive metrics (+0.5) weren't enough to offset the damage caused by his pattern of clanking wide-open threes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 20.0m -11.6
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Giddey 17.9m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Poor finishing around the basket and missed perimeter looks severely hampered his offensive value. Although he provided solid defensive rebounding and positional size (+2.7 defense), his inability to capitalize on scoring opportunities stalled momentum. The pattern of inefficient floaters ultimately outweighed his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 17.9m -10.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Coby White 6.6m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

An early exit or complete lack of offensive aggression resulted in a near-invisible performance. He failed to attempt a single shot, completely abandoning his usual scoring role and allowing the defense to rest. This passive approach during his brief first-quarter stint generated a negative impact simply through a lack of production.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 6.6m -3.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 31.6m
10
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.3

A rough shooting night from beyond the arc crippled his offensive efficiency and allowed defenders to go under screens. Despite generating solid playmaking and bringing high energy (+2.9 hustle), the empty possessions piled up. His inability to punish the defense from deep during transition pushes ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -49.0
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 31.6m -18.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Smith 25.5m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Excellent floor spacing from the frontcourt drove a positive impact, punishing defensive rotations with timely perimeter shooting. He paired this offensive efficiency with stout interior defense (+4.7), challenging shots without fouling. Capitalizing on pick-and-pop opportunities defined his highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 25.5m -14.9
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

A lack of overall volume limited his ability to positively influence the game, despite shooting efficiently when called upon. He struggled to get open against aggressive perimeter defense, resulting in long stretches of offensive inactivity. This passive floor presence, combined with minimal hustle metrics, led to a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 22.0m -12.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Tre Jones 21.1m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

Defensive vulnerabilities (-0.5) slightly outweighed his efficient offensive orchestration and steady finishing. Opposing guards consistently broke down his point-of-attack defense, forcing rotations that compromised the defensive shell. Even with his reliable shot selection, the points surrendered on the other end during the third quarter tipped his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -65.9
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 21.1m -12.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

An inability to generate meaningful offensive leverage resulted in a heavily negative overall score. While he provided strong defensive resistance (+3.4) and active hustle, his offensive possessions were largely stagnant or ended in missed jumpers. The lack of offensive gravity allowed the opponent to load up on primary scorers throughout the game.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 19.6m -11.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Dalen Terry 10.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Elite defensive energy (+4.8) and relentless hustle (+2.9) were completely undone by zero offensive production. He bricked all his attempts and failed to pressure the rim, making it easy for the defense to ignore him. Playing essentially 4-on-5 on offense negated the chaos he created on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -50.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 10.9m -6.3
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

A brief, ineffective stint was marred by poor defensive positioning (-0.6) and a lack of offensive flow. He failed to make an imprint on the game during his limited minutes, largely floating on the perimeter. The inability to execute defensive assignments quickly sunk his net rating during garbage time.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 5.8m -3.4
Impact -4.1
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
-3.4

Missed shots and a complete lack of offensive rhythm defined his short time on the floor. He couldn't provide his usual point-of-attack disruption to offset the empty offensive trips. Failing to connect on any looks quickly forced him into a negative impact score before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 5.0m -2.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 32.2m
23
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

A massive scoring surge fueled his high impact rating, breaking out of a recent slump with aggressive, high-quality shot creation. His offensive gravity constantly tilted the floor, while solid defensive engagement (+5.1) ensured he wasn't giving points back. The sheer volume of successful isolation possessions defined his stellar outing.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +38.8
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 32.2m -18.8
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Rudy Gobert 29.6m
9
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Defensive dominance (+12.2) was the clear catalyst for his positive score, anchoring the paint and deterring rim attempts. He capitalized on limited offensive touches with high-percentage finishes around the basket, avoiding empty possessions. His pattern of suffocating drop-coverage defense altered opponent rhythms all night.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +12.2
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 29.6m -17.2
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
S Julius Randle 28.0m
17
pts
5
reb
14
ast
Impact
+11.7

Elite playmaking drove a massive positive impact, with his passing creating high-value opportunities across the floor. He maintained his recent streak of efficient shot selection while adding strong defensive activity (+5.4) and hustle (+3.1) to his profile. Operating as an offensive hub against switching schemes allowed him to dictate the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 28.0m -16.2
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Perimeter reliance yielded mixed results, as a pattern of missed triples slightly dragged down his offensive efficiency. He chipped in with active hustle plays (+2.3) to keep possessions alive, but the overall shot selection leaned too heavily on high-variance looks. This trigger-happy approach from deep ultimately resulted in a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 26.5m -15.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaden McDaniels 22.8m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Offensive struggles heavily weighed down his overall impact, as a sharp drop in scoring efficiency forced empty possessions. Despite providing solid defensive resistance (+2.9), his inability to convert on looks he normally makes stalled the half-court offense. The pattern of clanking open jumpers ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 22.8m -13.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 26.9m
33
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.7

Scorching perimeter shooting completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme, driving an astronomical box score impact (+28.2). He punished drop coverage by stepping out and converting high-value looks at an unsustainable clip, forcing massive defensive rotations. The sheer volume of efficient shot-making overshadowed any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.7%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +28.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 26.9m -15.6
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 18.8m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.5

Suffocating defensive pressure (+9.6) combined with an unexpected offensive breakout to generate a massive positive impact. He capitalized on transition opportunities and loose balls (+3.0 hustle) to score efficiently without demanding plays be run for him. This two-way energy injection completely flipped the momentum during his second-quarter minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +9.6
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 18.8m -11.0
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Mike Conley 17.8m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

A passive offensive approach severely limited his impact, as he failed to pressure the defense or create advantages. While he contributed typical veteran hustle (+2.4) and positional defense, the lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. His pattern of deferring to teammates ultimately resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 17.8m -10.3
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 14.4m
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Quick-strike offense and efficient shot creation off the bench provided a significant lift to the second unit. He balanced his scoring punch with active hands on defense (+3.1) and solid hustle metrics, avoiding the defensive drop-off that usually plagues his profile. Capitalizing on defensive mismatches allowed him to generate high-quality looks in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +34.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 14.4m -8.3
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Defensive positioning (+2.6) kept his impact in the green despite struggling to find the mark offensively. He made up for clanked jumpers by staying active in rotation and contributing positive hustle plays (+1.5) during his brief stint. Surviving the non-rotation minutes without bleeding points was the defining characteristic of his run.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Efficient spot-up shooting provided a minor offensive boost during his short time on the court. He managed to avoid defensive mistakes (+0.1) that often hurt young guards, playing within the flow of the system. Hitting the open looks generated by teammates during garbage time was enough to secure a slightly positive net score.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 5.8m -3.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Empty offensive possessions dragged his score down, as he failed to convert on his limited opportunities around the basket. However, strong rim protection (+3.8) partially salvaged his impact by deterring opponent drives. The inability to finish plays offensively during his brief rotation stint ultimately kept his net rating in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 5.8m -3.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A sharp decline in offensive involvement compared to his recent stretch limited his ability to positively influence the game. He floated on the perimeter without forcing the issue, resulting in a neutral box score presence that didn't move the needle. Minor defensive contributions weren't enough to overcome his pattern of offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1