GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 35.6m
24
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.3

Smothering point-of-attack defense combined with ruthless offensive efficiency engineered a massive positive rating. He completely shattered his recent scoring baseline by relentlessly cutting to the basket and finishing through contact. This was a textbook two-way masterclass where his physical intensity dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +36.3
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 35.6m -20.9
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
17
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.8

A deceptively hollow offensive output failed to move the needle, resulting in a slightly negative overall rating. His lack of foot speed in pick-and-roll coverage routinely compromised the defensive shell, bleeding points on the other end. The solid shooting splits merely masked how often he was targeted and exploited in space.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 33.5m -19.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tre Jones 27.1m
20
pts
2
reb
12
ast
Impact
+11.3

Absolute perfection from the field and surgical offensive orchestration resulted in a stellar impact score. He manipulated the defense flawlessly in the pick-and-roll, never forcing a pass or settling for a bad look. Continuing a scorching stretch of efficiency, his steady hand completely stabilized the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 103.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 27.1m -15.9
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 27.0m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Forcing the issue from beyond the arc nearly neutralized his otherwise solid two-way contributions. While his weak-side help defense and transition finishing were excellent, bricking seven three-pointers stalled several offensive possessions. He salvaged a slightly positive rating strictly through his high-motor activity in the open court.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 27.0m -15.8
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Smith 26.3m
14
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Dominating the glass and altering shots in the paint drove a highly impactful performance. He leveraged his length to disrupt driving lanes, creating transition opportunities for the guards. Even with a few errant perimeter attempts, his sheer activity level in the paint made him a constant positive force.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 26.3m -15.5
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

An inability to consistently punish defensive closeouts dragged his overall rating into the red. Although he surprisingly graded out as a major plus in team defensive schemes, his lack of offensive gravity allowed opponents to shrink the floor. He simply couldn't find the necessary spacing to unleash his typical perimeter barrage.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.3
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 29.4m -17.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 24.7m
12
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.8

Tenacious on-ball pressure salvaged a positive rating on a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. He fell well short of his recent scoring tears, frequently driving into heavily contested traffic at the rim. However, his relentless screen navigation on the defensive end prevented his offensive struggles from sinking the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 24.7m -14.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Snapping out of a horrific shooting slump, he finally provided the two-way stability the coaching staff demands. He stopped hesitating on the catch, firing decisive jumpers that kept the defense honest. Combined with his usual switchability on the wing, this bounce-back effort yielded a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 20.0m -11.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Dalen Terry 10.2m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Rushed decision-making and completely empty offensive possessions tanked his value during a brief stint on the floor. He looked entirely out of sync with the offensive flow, forcing wild drives that went nowhere. Without any disruptive defensive plays to compensate, his minutes were a clear negative for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 10.2m -6.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Failing to leave any meaningful imprint on the game, his brief cameo resulted in a minor negative rating. He couldn't establish the necessary point-of-attack pressure to disrupt the opposing backcourt. A couple of clanked jumpers in early-clock situations further suppressed his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 6.1m -3.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 33.6m
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

Inefficient perimeter chucking tanked his overall impact despite decent defensive metrics. He strayed from his recent reliable shooting form by forcing contested looks from deep, resulting in a high volume of empty possessions. The sheer number of clanked jumpers ultimately outweighed his physical containment on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 33.6m -19.8
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Trey Murphy III 33.6m
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.9

A brutal negative impact score stems directly from settling for contested, low-percentage looks from beyond the arc. Bricking eight three-pointers resulted in a cascade of empty trips that allowed the opposition to build transition momentum. Despite average defensive positioning, his inability to find a rhythm offensively crippled the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 33.6m -19.7
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Zion Williamson 29.5m
31
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.3

Utter dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact score, easily offsetting minor defensive lapses. He bullied his way to high-percentage finishes, breaking out of his recent scoring baseline to overwhelm the interior defense. This was a classic downhill performance where his sheer physical force dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +28.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 29.5m -17.3
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 25.4m
9
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.6

Elite defensive rotations and relentless hustle metrics were the primary engines behind his strong positive rating. He completely flipped his recent offensive struggles by focusing purely on doing the dirty work around the basket. His rim deterrence and activity in the passing lanes fundamentally altered the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +9.6
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 25.4m -15.0
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 22.5m
5
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.7

Hitting a sudden offensive wall after a hot five-game stretch completely cratered his overall rating. He forced the issue against set defenses, resulting in rushed mechanics and broken offensive sets. The lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption meant he had no way to salvage his value once the primary scoring dried up.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 22.5m -13.2
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jordan Poole 26.2m
26
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.6

Breaking violently out of a severe shooting slump, his aggressive perimeter hunting finally paid dividends to drive a strong positive rating. He leveraged the threat of his jumper to bend the defense, creating chaotic closeouts that benefited the entire floor. Even with a few forced looks, the sheer gravity of his scoring surge dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense 0.0
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 26.2m -15.4
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 22.7m
3
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Spectacular weak-side rim protection and high-motor hustle plays drove a positive rating despite total offensive invisibility. He embraced a pure garbage-man role, generating extra possessions through sheer physical effort on the glass. His defensive anchoring proved far more valuable than any scoring output could have been.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 22.7m -13.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
Kevon Looney 17.9m
2
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Blown layups and clunky interior finishes dragged his rating slightly into the red. He managed to keep his head above water by executing his usual fundamentally sound drop coverage and battling for loose balls. Ultimately, the lack of offensive finishing outweighed his sturdy positional defense.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 17.9m -10.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Crashing back to earth after a hyper-efficient stretch, his inability to connect on spot-up looks tanked his value. He struggled to create separation against physical perimeter defenders, leading to rushed mechanics on his jumpers. Without his spacing gravity, the offensive sets frequently bogged down during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 14.4m -8.5
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Peavy 14.2m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Defensive lapses and poor screen navigation were the primary culprits behind a surprisingly poor overall rating. While he managed to double his usual meager scoring output, he routinely lost his man off the ball. Those back-breaking defensive breakdowns completely erased any minor offensive gains he made.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 14.2m -8.4
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1