GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 35.1m
18
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

Inefficient isolation attempts heavily taxed the offense, as he repeatedly settled for long, contested two-pointers. He remained engaged defensively, navigating screens well to contest shooters. However, his tendency to over-dribble late in the shot clock stalled the offensive flow during a critical third-quarter drought.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 35.1m -19.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 35.0m
19
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Smothering on-ball defense against the primary creator generated solid defensive metrics, but clunky offensive execution dragged his net rating down. He forced several contested drives into traffic, resulting in blocked shots and transition run-outs. A late-game stretch of rushed perimeter attempts prevented the team from mounting a comeback.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 35.0m -19.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Brunson 34.9m
24
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.8

Relentless rim pressure kept the defense collapsing, but a cold night from beyond the arc limited his overall efficiency. He drew multiple crucial charges to boost his hustle metrics and swing momentum. The sheer volume of missed perimeter shots allowed the opponent to consistently leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 34.9m -19.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Miles McBride 30.7m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

A severe lack of offensive rhythm tanked his impact, characterized by forced pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock. While he applied decent ball pressure, he frequently lost his man on back-door cuts. Getting caught ball-watching during a pivotal 10-0 opponent run perfectly encapsulated his struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 30.7m -16.9
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ariel Hukporti 28.4m
8
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.3

Completely controlled the paint through sheer physicality, generating massive value via second-chance opportunities. His defensive positioning was flawless, consistently deterring drives without committing fouls. A dominant sequence of three consecutive offensive rebounds in the final frame broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.7
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 28.4m -15.6
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 17.2m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Showed excellent burst getting to the rim, but struggled to organize the offense against trapping schemes. His negative impact stemmed primarily from getting bullied on switches by larger wings. A specific stretch of stagnant pick-and-roll play in the fourth quarter allowed the defense to comfortably reset.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 17.2m -9.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.2

Passing vision was a bright spot, but his complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, routinely giving up open catch-and-shoot looks. A pair of careless cross-court passes intercepted for fast breaks ruined his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 16.6m -9.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided sturdy post defense and set bruising screens that freed up the guards. His impact hovered around neutral because he was largely ignored on offense, spacing the floor without drawing closeouts. A solid stint defending the backup center in the second quarter stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 15.0m -8.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Tunnel vision and poor shot selection derailed the second unit's offense. He repeatedly drove into multiple defenders, resulting in blocked shots and wasted possessions. His inability to stay attached to shooters on the perimeter compounded the damage during a rough first-half stint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 13.5m -7.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Blanked offensively due to rushed attempts at the rim, but salvaged his minutes with highly disruptive wing defense. He successfully blew up several dribble hand-offs to stall the opponent's sets. His inability to knock down wide-open corner looks ultimately kept his impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 6.5m -3.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Logged minimal minutes but set a few hard screens to free up ball handlers. His quick closeouts on the perimeter showed defensive engagement during a short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -77.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 4.6m -2.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Barely saw the floor in a brief garbage-time cameo. Managed to execute proper defensive rotations during his limited run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 2.4m -1.3
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 38.0m
18
pts
10
reb
11
ast
Impact
+0.6

Defensive versatility anchored his performance, frequently blowing up pick-and-rolls as the low man. Despite strong rim protection, his net impact was dragged down to near-neutral by forced passes in transition that led to empty possessions. A crucial third-quarter stretch of stagnant isolation play limited his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.7
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 38.0m -21.0
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 37.5m
11
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite point-of-attack defense and constant deflections created a steady stream of transition opportunities. His hustle metrics popped due to multiple diving loose-ball recoveries that extended crucial possessions. A reluctance to take open perimeter shots allowed the defense to sag, slightly capping his offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +7.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 37.5m -20.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

High-volume creation kept the offense afloat, though his shot selection from deep was highly erratic. He generated immense value on the other end by fighting through screens and denying dribble hand-offs on the wing. A pivotal sequence of back-to-back steals in the third quarter highlighted his disruptive defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.1
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 34.3m -18.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 29.8m
23
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.1

Dominated the interior with elite pick-and-roll finishing and relentless screen-setting. His massive defensive impact stemmed from switching onto guards seamlessly, completely neutralizing the opponent's perimeter attack in the fourth quarter. Expanding his range successfully forced opposing bigs out of the paint to open up driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +11.0
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 29.8m -16.4
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Efficient spot-up shooting fueled a positive offensive rating, capitalizing on crisp ball movement. However, his overall impact was muted by getting heavily targeted in isolation during the second quarter. He must improve his weak-side awareness to maximize his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 22.3m -12.3
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Value plummeted due to poor spacing and getting repeatedly blown by on closeouts. While he showed flashes of secondary playmaking, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards forced the defense into constant rotation. A series of costly live-ball turnovers in the first half severely damaged his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 29.1m -16.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 20.7m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Lethal off-ball movement warped the opposing defense, creating wide-open driving lanes for his teammates. He maximized his touches with pristine shot selection, punishing late closeouts with quick-trigger jumpers. Hiding him effectively in a zone scheme mitigated his typical defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 20.7m -11.5
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

An abysmal shooting night cratered his offensive value, as he routinely settled for heavily contested mid-range fadeaways. He salvaged some utility by altering shots at the rim and securing contested defensive boards. His failure to punish mismatches in the post during the second half ultimately left the offense stagnant.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 17.3m -9.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Asa Newell 11.0m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to establish any deep post position or roll gravity. His negative impact was exacerbated by late rotations that resulted in easy lob dunks for the opponent. A brief, disastrous stint in the second quarter featured two offensive fouls on illegal screens.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 11.0m -6.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1