GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
15
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

Dominated the glass and operated as an effective offensive hub, punishing mismatches in the post. His surprisingly robust defensive impact stemmed from excellent positioning and verticality, deterring drives without fouling. He controlled the tempo of the game entirely through his physical presence in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 28.9m -16.2
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Coby White 28.9m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.6

Sliced through the defense with aggressive downhill drives, significantly outperforming his recent scoring averages. His relentless motor was the defining factor, generating a massive hustle rating through loose ball recoveries and transition pushes. This was a highly dynamic performance that kept the opposing defense constantly on its heels.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 28.9m -16.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 28.8m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Shot the ball with confidence from deep, capitalizing on defensive schemes that dared him to shoot. Despite the efficient scoring and solid point-of-attack defense, hidden mistakes like poor spacing and missed box-outs dragged his net impact slightly below neutral. The raw production was there, but the connective tissue of his game was lacking.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 28.8m -16.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Jones 28.0m
13
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

Continued his streak of surgical offensive efficiency, picking apart the pick-and-roll coverage with precise floaters and entry passes. However, his inability to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack severely limited his overall value. The flawless offensive execution was nearly entirely offset by the defensive concessions.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 28.0m -15.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 25.2m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Volume scoring masked a highly inefficient shot profile, specifically a brutal stretch of misses from beyond the arc. He forced the issue against set defenses rather than moving the ball, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His defensive effort was adequate, but poor shot selection ultimately dictated his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 25.2m -14.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 25.6m
20
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+14.6

Played a nearly perfect two-way game, combining elite shot-making with suffocating perimeter defense. He completely shut down his primary matchup while relentlessly attacking the rim in transition, driving a massive box score impact. This performance was defined by his sheer athletic dominance and flawless decision-making.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.2
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 25.6m -14.4
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.5

Excelled as a secondary playmaker and off-ball threat, constantly warping the defense with his movement. His impact was amplified by surprisingly disruptive defense and a willingness to fight through screens. He didn't just rely on his jumper, actively contributing to winning plays across the board.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +45.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 23.8m -13.4
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Continued a brutal offensive slump, looking entirely passive and hesitant to attack closeouts. While his on-ball defense remained sturdy, his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely double-team other options. The inability to make defenses pay for ignoring him resulted in a heavily negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 20.4m -11.4
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 16.3m
7
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A disastrous shooting night from the perimeter completely derailed his offensive value, as he repeatedly bricked wide-open trail threes. He managed to hover near a neutral impact entirely due to his rim protection and weak-side help. The defensive anchoring saved what was otherwise a highly detrimental offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.5%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +33.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 16.3m -9.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Brought immediate energy off the bench, focusing entirely on sprinting the floor and crashing the glass. He didn't record a single shot attempt, operating strictly as a hustle piece during his brief stint. The lack of offensive involvement kept his impact minimal, but he executed his limited role without mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Maximized his garbage-time minutes by immediately knocking down a perimeter shot and applying full-court pressure. His aggressive mindset in a short window provided a quick positive jolt to the lineup. It was a brief but highly effective burst of two-way intensity.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact +2.6
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
-5.1

Forced the issue during his brief appearance, rushing two ill-advised shots that led directly to transition opportunities for the opponent. He offered zero resistance defensively and failed to register any hustle stats. A completely disjointed stint that actively harmed the team's momentum in just under three minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 2.8m -1.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Blended into the background during his short run, failing to make any discernible impact on either end of the floor. He managed to secure a single loose ball but otherwise avoided making plays, resulting in a perfectly neutral showing. The lack of aggression or mistakes defined a highly forgettable stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Ryan Nembhard 29.2m
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.3

An unexpected scoring explosion from the perimeter artificially inflated his box score impact. However, a lack of defensive resistance and minimal hustle plays allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo whenever he was on the floor. The offensive outburst was ultimately a hollow statistical achievement that didn't translate to winning basketball, resulting in a negative net score.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 29.2m -16.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cooper Flagg 28.2m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.9

A drastic departure from his recent scoring tear, his impact cratered due to forced shots and poor finishing around the basket. While he remained active on the glass and provided solid weak-side help, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions tanked his overall value. Opponents successfully sped up his processing, leading to a highly inefficient outing that dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.4%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 28.2m -15.8
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Max Christie 27.1m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Perimeter shot-making kept his offensive rating respectable, but defensive lapses and poor rotational timing dragged down his overall impact. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, bleeding value on the defensive end despite decent hustle numbers. The scoring efficiency couldn't mask the points given right back on the other side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 27.1m -15.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 24.7m
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

His usual elite interior finishing vanished, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances as he struggled against physical drop coverage. He salvaged a neutral overall impact by generating second-chance opportunities and maintaining a physical presence in the paint. The hustle metrics highlight how he found ways to contribute when the lob passes were taken away.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.7m -13.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Naji Marshall 24.4m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

Despite struggling to find his rhythm offensively with a barrage of missed jumpers, his defensive intensity anchored the second unit. His ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots at the rim generated a strong defensive impact. This two-way effort ensured he remained a net positive despite the scoring dip.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +8.0
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 24.4m -13.5
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Continued a troubling trend of perimeter inefficiency, settling for contested looks early in the shot clock. A complete lack of secondary hustle plays meant he offered virtually no value when his jumper wasn't falling. Defenders easily closed out on his attempts, neutralizing his primary weapon and exposing his declining lateral quickness.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -41.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 19.9m -11.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Caleb Martin 19.8m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Brought his trademark energy and rotational discipline, as evidenced by strong hustle metrics, but struggled to find an offensive rhythm. He passed up several open looks, stalling the offensive flow and allowing the defense to reset. While his defensive versatility was valuable, his hesitancy on the other end kept him slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 19.8m -11.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 19.4m
5
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.5

Completely dominated the interior through sheer motor and elite rim protection. He didn't need offensive touches to control the game, instead generating immense value by altering shots and securing contested rebounds. This performance was a masterclass in starring in a specific role without demanding the basketball, driving a massive total impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense +9.8
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 19.4m -10.8
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.8

Stagnated the offense with methodical, probing possessions that frequently ended in tough mid-range jumpers. His inability to break down the primary defender or generate advantage situations led to a deeply negative overall impact. Furthermore, a lack of physical engagement on defense allowed opponents to comfortably run their sets.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 18.7m -10.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Miles Kelly 14.8m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, consistently arriving late on defensive rotations. His offensive flashes were completely overshadowed by an inability to navigate screens or stay attached to his man. The lack of hustle stats further highlights a passive performance where he was largely a spectator.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Hardy 12.7m
14
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a massive scoring punch in limited minutes by hunting transition threes and attacking closeouts. However, his total impact was heavily muted by a complete absence of defensive resistance and zero hustle contributions. He operated strictly as a microwave scorer, giving back almost everything he generated offensively.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 12.7m -7.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Made the most of a brief cameo by executing his defensive assignments flawlessly and setting solid screens. Even in just one minute of action, his positional awareness contributed to a quick positive swing. It was a textbook example of a veteran staying ready and executing the game plan without making mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 1.0m -0.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0