GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 38.6m
21
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.1

Elite defensive anchoring and relentless hustle plays salvaged an otherwise brutal shooting night. While his perimeter bricklaying threatened to tank his value, his ability to blow up opponent actions kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.4
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 38.6m -18.6
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Mikal Bridges 37.0m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite solid individual shooting efficiency and active defensive hands, his overall impact cratered into the negative. This points to poorly timed defensive breakdowns or rotational struggles that aren't fully captured by his baseline hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 37.0m -17.9
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Miles McBride 36.3m
23
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.9

Shattered his usual offensive ceiling by catching fire from beyond the arc, fundamentally altering the game's momentum. Paired with suffocating perimeter defense and high-energy hustle, this breakout performance resulted in a massive positive swing for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +4.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 36.3m -17.6
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Controlled the paint and provided excellent defensive value, which heavily drove his positive net rating. Even with a handful of forced perimeter jumpers, his sheer gravity and rebounding presence stabilized the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.9
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 34.6m -16.7
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Mohamed Diawara 12.1m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Struggled to find a rhythm during his brief time on the court, with missed perimeter looks dragging down his offensive value. Minor defensive contributions weren't enough to offset the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 12.1m -5.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Highly inefficient shot creation and poor defensive resistance combined to create a massive negative swing. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock actively derailed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 21.9m -10.7
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

A complete lack of offensive finishing severely hampered his effectiveness, breaking a long streak of highly efficient interior play. While he offered some baseline rim protection, his inability to capitalize on dump-offs or putbacks stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.1%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 19.3m -9.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 16.6m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Struggled mightily to initiate the offense, with his poor shot selection and inability to break down defenders leading to empty trips. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't mask the severe offensive limitations he showed in this outing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -62.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 16.6m -8.0
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Failed to bend the defense as a spacing threat, missing his perimeter looks and shrinking the floor. His inability to punish closeouts resulted in stagnant offensive possessions that dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 14.4m -7.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Managed to carve out a positive impact without attempting a single field goal, relying entirely on positional defense and quick rotations. His willingness to play a pure glue-guy role during a short stint kept the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 8.7m -4.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged mere seconds of garbage time. Did not have an opportunity to impact the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.3m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 38.2m
27
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Despite struggling to find his perimeter stroke, elite defensive engagement and high-activity hustle plays kept his overall impact above water. The sheer volume of missed jumpers capped his ceiling, but he found other ways to contribute when the primary weapon failed.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 38.2m -18.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Royce O'Neale 29.9m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Low-maintenance offensive execution and steady defensive rotations kept his baseline impact positive. He picked his spots perfectly from beyond the arc, acting as a reliable spacing valve without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 29.9m -14.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 29.0m
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

Severe offensive inefficiency tanked his overall impact, as a barrage of missed perimeter jumpers derailed possessions. While he provided marginal defensive resistance, his poor shot selection actively harmed the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 19.2%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 29.0m -14.0
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.3

Surpassed his usual scoring output, but poor overall shooting efficiency dragged his net impact into the red. His defensive metrics were surprisingly robust, yet they couldn't fully mask the empty offensive possessions caused by forced attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 25.7m -12.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 25.5m
14
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Anchored the interior effectively, combining high-percentage finishing at the rim with stout defensive deterrence. His ability to convert looks efficiently in the paint drove a highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 25.5m -12.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
16
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Extreme perimeter volume yielded diminishing returns, as a heavy diet of missed triples suppressed his offensive rating. He managed to scrape out a positive net impact strictly through exceptional hustle metrics and loose-ball recoveries.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +4.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 26.9m -13.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 22.2m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

A complete lack of offensive aggression severely limited his effectiveness, breaking a streak of highly efficient outings. He managed to generate some value through active hustle plays, but his invisibility on the scoring end created a noticeable drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +49.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 22.2m -10.9
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.2

Delivered a masterclass in two-way efficiency, combining near-perfect shot selection with suffocating point-of-attack defense. His relentless motor translated into elite hustle metrics, making him the most impactful player on the floor during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +47.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 20.4m -9.9
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 16.9m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Maximized a short stint with flawless offensive execution and disruptive defensive rotations. Taking only high-value shots allowed him to generate a massive positive swing without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +79.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 16.9m -8.2
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Failed to register any meaningful positive contributions during a brief rotation stint. A lack of offensive involvement and negligible defensive impact resulted in a quick negative swing for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 5.3m -2.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0