GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Miles McBride 33.5m
16
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

Relentless energy on the defensive end and a willingness to sacrifice his body for loose balls (+5.7 Hustle) kept his impact afloat despite a high volume of missed threes. He was given the green light to fire away, but his shot selection often bailed out the defense early in the clock. A classic case of high-motor play offsetting inefficient perimeter gunning.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 33.5m -20.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Brunson 33.3m
26
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.1

Picked apart the drop coverage with absolute precision, generating a massive positive impact through flawless decision-making in the pick-and-roll. He rarely forced the issue, consistently finding the open man or stepping into rhythm jumpers when the big man sagged too far into the paint. This was a masterclass in controlling the game's tempo and punishing defensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 33.3m -20.3
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 33.0m
15
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.9

Elite point-of-attack defense (+6.7 Def) completely neutralized the opponent's primary ball-handler during a pivotal third-quarter run. He navigated screens flawlessly, preventing any downhill momentum and forcing late-clock bailouts. Offensively, he took exactly what the defense gave him, capitalizing on mid-range pull-ups when chased off the three-point line.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 33.0m -20.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 31.9m
20
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Surgical cutting along the baseline punished the defense for over-helping, leading to a highly efficient scoring night. He generated massive value by diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes (+5.0 Hustle) to ignite transition opportunities. This performance was defined by his relentless off-ball movement and opportunistic finishing at the rim.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 31.9m -19.4
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.3

Settled for far too many contested perimeter shots against smaller defenders instead of punishing them in the low post. However, he salvaged his overall impact by dominating the defensive glass and anchoring the paint (+6.7 Def) when his outside shot wasn't falling. His willingness to pass out of double teams kept the offense flowing despite his own shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.7
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 31.2m -19.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Anchored the defense with elite rim deterrence (+5.7 Def), altering numerous shots in the paint without committing silly fouls. His offensive impact was muted compared to recent games as he struggled to finish through contact around the basket. Nevertheless, his sheer physical presence and second-chance generation kept his overall rating firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.7
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 24.5m -14.9
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided a crucial scoring punch off the bench by attacking closeouts with decisive straight-line drives to the rim. He surprisingly held his own defensively (+2.7 Def), staying attached to shooters and avoiding the reach-in fouls that sometimes plague his game. A highly controlled and efficient stint that gave the second unit a much-needed stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 20.7m -12.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 14.4m
2
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.5

Impact cratered due to a series of poor reads in the pick-and-roll that stalled the offense and led to empty possessions. He struggled to turn the corner against switches, frequently picking up his dribble and killing the possession's momentum. The inability to break down the defense or create separation resulted in a severely negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +56.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 14.4m -8.9
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Punished the defense for leaving him open on the perimeter, knocking down key pick-and-pop jumpers to stretch the floor for the guards. He used his wide frame effectively to seal off drivers, contributing to a solid defensive rating during his rotation minutes. A low-usage, high-efficiency performance that perfectly complemented the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 13.1m -8.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Rushed a contested three-pointer during his brief time on the floor, failing to capitalize on his only offensive opportunity. He did show a flash of energy by securing a loose ball (+1.3 Hustle) before the final buzzer sounded. Ultimately, the stint was too short to overcome the negative value of the empty offensive trip.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 1.8m -1.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Logged barely over a minute of action, primarily just filling space on the floor during the game's final moments. He stayed in front of his man defensively but didn't register any meaningful statistics to swing his rating. The slight negative score simply reflects the team's overall performance during his fleeting appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.3m -0.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Made the most of his extremely limited minutes by aggressively attacking the glass and securing extra possessions. He showed excellent verticality on a late defensive possession, deterring a drive to the rim without fouling (+1.2 Def). A highly productive garbage-time stint that resulted in a surprisingly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 1.3m -0.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 37.8m
23
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.5

Impact plummeted due to forcing contested floaters in traffic instead of kicking out to open shooters on the perimeter. While his high-volume playmaking generated some positive value, defensive lapses in transition gave those points right back. The negative total rating reflects how his ball-dominant style stalled momentum during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 37.8m -23.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kawhi Leonard 36.3m
25
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Defensive metrics spiked (+8.4 Def) due to suffocating perimeter isolation coverage that repeatedly disrupted the opponent's primary actions. He generated crucial extra possessions through active hands in the passing lanes and hard closeouts on shooters. While his mid-range volume was typical, it was this two-way physical engagement that kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.4
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 36.3m -22.0
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S John Collins 33.1m
18
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Exceptional shot selection fueled a highly efficient offensive outing, continuing a recent trend of punishing defenses that leave him open in the corners. His ability to space the floor pulled the rim protector away, opening up driving lanes for teammates. Strong activity on the glass and loose ball recoveries (+5.7 Hustle) cemented a dominant overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 33.1m -20.1
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 31.9m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.2

A severe negative total impact (-16.2) stemmed directly from settling for contested perimeter jumpers early in the possession. Opponents sagged off him completely, stalling the half-court offense and leading to multiple empty trips. Despite decent point-of-attack pressure on defense, the offensive spacing issues he created were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 31.9m -19.4
Impact -16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 30.5m
22
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.5

Utterly dominated the interior by establishing deep post position early in the shot clock, leading to a massive positive impact on the offensive end. His wide screen-setting created significant separation for ball-handlers, while his disciplined verticality at the rim deterred several downhill drives. This was a masterclass in capitalizing on size mismatches without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +29.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +37.1
Avg player in 30.5m -18.6
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Continued a brutal shooting slump by missing several wide-open corner looks generated by drive-and-kicks. He compensated somewhat with veteran defensive positioning, consistently stunting into driving lanes to deter penetration and recover (+4.2 Def). Still, failing to capitalize on high-quality offensive opportunities heavily weighed down his total impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 18.0m -10.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 17.4m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Failed to generate any offensive gravity after forcing a series of contested drives against set defenses. His defensive rotations were actually quite sharp (+4.3 Def), blowing up two separate pick-and-roll actions on the weak side. However, the inability to collapse the defense or convert at the rim made him a liability on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 17.4m -10.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Brook Lopez 16.0m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Exclusively hunting pick-and-pop threes resulted in a highly inefficient offensive stint that dragged down his overall rating. He failed to punish smaller switches in the post, allowing the defense to stay home on the perimeter and smother the ball-handler. Solid drop-coverage rim protection (+2.7 Def) simply wasn't enough to salvage the offensive dead ends.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 16.0m -9.7
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Struggled to find a rhythm offensively, frequently passing up open looks only to drive into heavy traffic and turn the ball over. A couple of timely weak-side helps boosted his defensive metrics slightly during his short stint. Ultimately, his hesitation to shoot threw off the unit's spacing and resulted in a negative overall showing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 14.5m -8.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 1.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely saw the floor in a brief garbage-time appearance that offered no chance to impact the flow of the game. He essentially just ran out the clock without registering any meaningful actions on either end of the floor. The slight negative score is purely a byproduct of the team losing the tiny stint he played.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Rushed a heavily contested jumper during his extremely limited run at the end of the game, squandering his lone offensive touch. Failed to record any defensive or hustle stats to balance out the empty possession. A complete non-factor whose negative score reflects a single poor decision in garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Failed to convert a pair of rushed attempts around the basket during a fleeting late-game cameo. He did manage to show a flash of positional awareness by securing a couple of loose rebounds in traffic. The sample size was simply too small to overcome the negative value of the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 60.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0