GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
15
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

Brick after brick from the mid-range stalled the half-court offense and fueled opponent run-outs. Even with solid work on the glass, his inefficient shot profile and slow transition recoveries heavily penalized his net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 37.4m -20.2
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 33.7m
16
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.8

High-motor activity on the offensive glass and active hands in the passing lanes drove a positive rating. He masked some inefficient finishing by generating extra possessions through sheer effort.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 33.7m -18.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 48.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Coby White 31.6m
14
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.6

Perimeter shot selection was highly questionable, often bailing out the defense early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of long misses allowed the opposition to dictate the game's tempo and launch fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 31.6m -17.0
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 26.2m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Inability to command defensive attention off the ball hurt the team's spacing, despite solid point-of-attack defense. A few costly late-clock decisions kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 26.2m -14.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Smith 15.3m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.6

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by rolling hard to the rim and finishing with authority. His decisive movements in the pick-and-roll forced defensive collapses, yielding a highly efficient offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 15.3m -8.2
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Surprisingly dominant defensive positioning and timely weak-side helps defined this performance. Pairing excellent perimeter containment with timely floor-spacing completely tilted the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +10.8
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 32.6m -17.6
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 31.4m
23
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.1

Downhill aggression kept the defense on its heels, consistently collapsing the paint to create kick-out opportunities. His ability to beat the first line of defense mitigated some minor defensive lapses, keeping his impact positive.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.5
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 31.4m -16.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Dalen Terry 15.0m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Provided a massive spark plug effect by hitting timely corner jumpers and blowing up dribble hand-offs. Taking only high-value shots maximized his efficiency and bolstered the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 15.0m -8.0
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

Looked completely lost within the offensive flow, forcing heavily contested shots that led to empty trips. His lack of physical engagement on the boards compounded a disastrous, short-lived stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -6.7
Avg player in 12.1m -6.6
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made a brief but functional cameo, executing the offensive sets without forcing the issue. Managed to stay neutral during a quick rotational bridge.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 4.8m -2.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 33.9m
20
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

High-volume missed shots around the rim and clunky offensive flow suppressed what could have been a dominant night. While his elite paint protection and relentless screen-setting added value, the sheer number of empty possessions dragged his overall net impact down toward neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 33.9m -18.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 32.8m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

Despite strong on-ball defensive metrics, his overall impact plummeted due to offensive stagnation and poor spacing. A lack of aggression on the glass and empty offensive possessions dragged down his net rating significantly.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 32.8m -17.7
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Norman Powell 30.3m
21
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Scoring volume couldn't mask a complete lack of rebounding from the wing position. Failing to secure long misses gave opponents second-chance opportunities, ultimately resulting in a negative net impact despite solid defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 30.3m -16.3
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Pelle Larsson 28.6m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Consistent shot selection and strong perimeter containment drove a highly positive impact. His ability to stay in front of drivers yielded an elite defensive rating, making him a reliable two-way connector throughout his shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 28.6m -15.5
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

A complete refusal to look at the rim allowed defenders to aggressively play the passing lanes. While he generated some ball movement, the lack of scoring gravity stalled the second-unit offense and kept his impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 12.8m -6.9
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.6

Put on a two-way clinic by dominating the passing lanes and finishing through contact. His elite defensive anticipation consistently sparked transition opportunities, making him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +12.2
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 32.1m -17.3
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 22.6m
11
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.7

Relentless energy on loose balls completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. He broke out of a severe slump by focusing purely on defensive pressure and opportunistic cuts to the basket, driving a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 22.6m -12.2
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.0

A brutal combination of forced jumpers and missed defensive assignments cratered his minutes. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, compounding the damage of his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +34.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.2
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 17.6m -9.6
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts limited his offensive ceiling. While his weak-side rotations were adequate, the lack of floor-spacing gravity ultimately resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 17.2m -9.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 12.1m
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Completely shifted the game's momentum with a sudden barrage of pick-and-pop perimeter jumpers. His floor-stretching from the center position pulled rim protectors out of the paint, generating a massive offensive spike in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 12.1m -6.5
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0