GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 33.8m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

Poor closeouts and missed defensive assignments uncharacteristically dragged his impact into the red. He allowed too much dribble penetration on the perimeter, forcing the interior defense to collapse repeatedly. Despite a steady offensive output, the defensive lapses proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 33.8m -21.6
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
35
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.4

Masterful operation out of the post and pick-and-pop actions completely dismantled the opposing frontcourt. He consistently punished switches, generating high-quality looks for himself and drawing double teams to open up the perimeter. His sheer scoring gravity and interior presence anchored a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +33.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +38.1
Avg player in 30.9m -19.7
Impact +18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Coby White 29.9m
6
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-15.3

A brutal shooting slump from the perimeter severely handicapped the offense's half-court spacing. Although he compensated slightly with excellent hustle from the guard spot, his inability to bend the defense as a scoring threat stalled multiple drives. The offensive stagnation he caused ultimately cratered his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 29.9m -19.1
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Tre Jones 26.2m
7
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.7

Elite defensive pressure at the point of attack generated immense value, constantly disrupting the opponent's offensive initiation. However, his uncharacteristic struggles to finish around the basket offset those defensive gains. The failure to convert on typical high-percentage looks snapped his efficiency streak and kept his net score slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +9.2
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 26.2m -16.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 18.6m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

A sharp regression in offensive assertiveness limited his ability to pressure the rim. He settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, failing to establish the scoring rhythm he has shown in recent outings. This passive approach offensively negated his otherwise adequate hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 18.6m -11.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 27.9m
15
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.9

Tenacious on-ball defense and quick hands in the passing lanes fueled transition opportunities all night. He made excellent reads when attacking closeouts, balancing his own scoring with timely kick-outs to shooters. The combination of defensive disruption and steady playmaking secured a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.1
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 27.9m -17.7
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Perfect execution from beyond the arc punished defenders for leaving him open in the corners. He broke out of a severe scoring slump by decisively attacking closeouts rather than hesitating. Solid weak-side rim protection further cemented a highly efficient, two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 23.4m -14.9
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Defensive liabilities heavily outweighed his perimeter shot-making in this contest. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, giving up straight-line drives and failing to navigate screens effectively. The constant defensive breakdowns bled points, ruining what was otherwise an acceptable offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense -2.5
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 18.8m -12.0
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Smith 17.1m
12
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt opened up crucial driving lanes during his minutes on the floor. He capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities to significantly boost his recent scoring average. While his defensive presence was merely average, the offensive versatility he provided kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 17.1m -10.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dalen Terry 13.4m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+17.5

Absolute havoc on the defensive end defined this explosive stint off the bench. He completely derailed the opponent's second unit with elite ball pressure and deflections, while simultaneously catching fire from deep. This high-energy, two-way surge in limited minutes produced a staggering positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.9
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 13.4m -8.5
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 34.1m
25
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.7

A barrage of missed three-pointers nearly erased the value of his high-volume playmaking and interior scoring. He forced the issue from the perimeter instead of attacking the rim where he was finding success. Ultimately, his positive defensive reads barely kept his net impact above water during a rough shooting slump from deep.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.4%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 34.1m -21.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 31.2m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

A severe drop in offensive aggression limited his overall effectiveness, as he passed up open looks he normally takes. Despite solid defensive rotations and hustle metrics, his reluctance to initiate offense dragged down the team's spacing. The steep decline in scoring volume ultimately tanked his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 31.2m -19.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Ace Bailey 31.1m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Perimeter struggles defined his night, with empty possessions from beyond the arc stalling the offensive flow. While he managed decent peripheral production, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag and clog the paint. His negative overall impact reflects a failure to adapt his shot selection when the deep ball wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 31.1m -19.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 30.8m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.5

High-level efficiency in the paint continues to be his calling card, extending his streak of highly effective interior performances. He generated massive value through excellent defensive positioning and relentless activity on the glass. The combination of reliable finishing and strong hustle metrics drove a dominant positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +6.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 30.8m -19.6
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Collier 21.6m
8
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.2

Zero presence on the glass heavily penalized his overall rating, giving opponents too many second-chance opportunities. He failed to generate meaningful defensive resistance, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the team's shell. The lack of peripheral contributions turned a quiet offensive night into a significant net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 21.6m -13.8
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
43
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.4

An absolute masterclass in shot-making fueled a massive spike in his offensive rating. He hunted mismatches ruthlessly, punishing drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers to double his usual scoring output. Strong defensive engagement further amplified his stellar offensive rhythm, resulting in a game-breaking positive impact.

Shooting
FG 15/22 (68.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +37.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +43.3
Avg player in 34.3m -21.9
Impact +21.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.6

Excellent point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to salvage a disastrous shooting performance. He settled for contested perimeter looks rather than moving the ball, short-circuiting several offensive possessions. The stark drop in scoring efficiency ultimately outweighed his disruptive defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 20.8m -13.2
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Complete offensive invisibility torpedoed his impact score, as he failed to make himself available in half-court sets. While his defensive positioning remained adequate, his refusal to challenge the defense or attack closeouts left his team playing four-on-five on the other end. The lack of overall engagement resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 19.0m -12.1
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Smart, opportunistic cuts to the basket yielded a highly efficient scoring bump compared to his recent baseline. He glued the second unit together with timely defensive rotations and active hands in passing lanes. This low-usage, high-efficiency outing perfectly illustrates his value as a connective piece.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 17.2m -11.0
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0