GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
19
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.7

Surgical efficiency in the pick-and-pop game dismantled the opposing frontcourt and drove a stellar net rating. Pairing this offensive masterclass with surprisingly stout positional defense (+6.3) walled off the paint effectively. The ability to dominate his matchup without forcing shots dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 32.3m -20.7
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Coby White 30.6m
27
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.8

Blistering perimeter shot-making broke the opposing defensive scheme and fueled a highly positive impact score. Hunting his shot with extreme confidence, he used tight handles to create separation for deep pull-up threes. Exceptional hustle metrics (+3.5) showed he was just as engaged in tracking down loose balls as he was in scoring.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 30.6m -19.4
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Matas Buzelis 30.1m
21
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

Two-way versatility defined his positive impact, combining sharp perimeter shooting with highly disruptive help defense (+5.7). Consistently punishing late rotations by knocking down catch-and-shoot threes stretched the floor beautifully. A steady stream of hustle plays (+2.6) ensured his value extended well beyond his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +38.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 30.1m -19.1
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jalen Smith 23.6m
10
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Elite defensive anchoring (+7.6) barely kept his net impact in the black despite a clunky interior shooting night. Making up for missed bunnies around the rim, he stretched the floor effectively from deep. His relentless motor on the glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 23.6m -15.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Isaac Okoro 14.9m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

A stark regression in offensive assertiveness torpedoed his overall value. While bringing his usual high-energy hustle (+2.7), his reluctance to attack the basket allowed the defense to play four-on-five. This lack of scoring punch completely neutralized his solid point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 14.9m -9.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite excellent defensive rotations (+5.7) and efficient perimeter shooting, his overall impact slipped just below neutral. Struggling to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack gave back some of the value he created on offense. The failure to generate consistent rim pressure limited his ability to fully break down the defense.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 28.9m -18.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 28.8m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.1

Suffocating perimeter defense (+8.3) and lethal spot-up shooting created a massive two-way impact. Completely shutting down his primary assignment, he punished every defensive collapse with highly efficient outside shooting. The combination of elite hustle and smart shot selection defined a near-flawless performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +8.3
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 28.8m -18.4
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Tre Jones 25.6m
15
pts
8
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.0

Masterful offensive orchestration and near-perfect shooting efficiency resulted in a dominant net rating. Picking apart the defensive shell with precise interior passes, he continued his scorching streak of high-percentage finishing. Active hands in passing lanes (+5.7 defense) sparked multiple transition opportunities that broke the game open.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +52.7
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 25.6m -16.3
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Dalen Terry 14.0m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Timely perimeter shot-making elevated his impact score into positive territory. Providing a much-needed offensive spark off the bench, he maintained solid defensive discipline (+3.8). The willingness to take and make open threes punished the defense for sagging off him.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 14.0m -8.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Barely moving the needle during his brief appearance, he registered a neutral impact score. Failing to attempt a single shot broke his recent pattern of efficient scoring. Minor hustle plays kept him from being a net negative, but his defensive positioning (-0.5) was slightly suspect.

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 3.7m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 3.7m -2.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

A quick burst of defensive pressure (+1.6) and a timely three-pointer yielded a modest positive impact in limited action. Refusing to force the issue offensively, he took exactly what the defense gave him. His ability to disrupt the opposing ball handler at the point of attack set a physical tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 3.7m -2.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Continued offensive struggles rendered his minutes entirely ineffective. Unable to generate any separation or meaningful looks, he extended a brutal scoreless streak. The lack of defensive playmaking meant he had no way to salvage his negative impact on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 3.7m -2.4
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
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 30.6m
24
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.0

Severe shot-selection issues cratered his overall impact despite a high scoring output. Forcing a massive volume of isolation jumpers resulted in empty possessions that allowed the defense to set up in transition. The sheer number of clanked attempts vastly outweighed his decent hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 9/25 (36.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.6%
USG% 43.2%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 30.6m -19.6
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Kris Dunn 26.1m
4
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.2

Offensive invisibility doomed his net score, as he failed to bend the defense or create meaningful advantages. While his point-of-attack defense remained sturdy (+3.4), the lack of a scoring threat allowed opponents to completely ignore him off the ball. He continues a pattern of being a severe spacing liability.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 26.1m -16.6
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kobe Sanders 25.0m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Despite solid defensive metrics (+3.0), his overall impact dipped into the negative due to a lower offensive ceiling compared to his recent scorching shooting stretch. Settling for perimeter looks instead of attacking the paint limited his efficiency. The lack of high-leverage hustle plays kept him from overcoming this slight offensive regression.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 25.0m -16.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S John Collins 23.7m
23
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

A massive scoring surge fueled his positive net rating, easily overcoming noticeable defensive lapses (-1.9). His perimeter gravity was the defining factor, punishing drop coverages by burying catch-and-shoot threes at a blistering rate. This marks a continuation of a highly efficient offensive pattern over his last three outings.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 23.7m -15.1
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ivica Zubac 22.0m
12
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite rim protection and defensive positioning (+5.2) anchored his positive impact, masking a somewhat inefficient night around the basket. Generating crucial extra possessions through high-motor hustle plays on the glass kept the offense alive. The interior deterrence he provided completely altered the opponent's shot selection in the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 22.0m -14.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Christie 23.0m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Phenomenal defensive activity (+7.5) and opportunistic scoring almost pushed him into the green. Breaking out of a severe shooting slump, he finally took high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense. However, his overall impact remained slightly negative due to a lack of overall volume and creation.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.5
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 23.0m -14.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Poor perimeter efficiency and forced drives into traffic resulted in a heavily negative impact score. Failing to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off and pack the paint against his teammates. The lack of secondary defensive playmaking couldn't salvage his inefficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -61.7
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 22.0m -13.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Brook Lopez 14.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

A complete offensive goose egg destroyed his value on the floor, erasing the benefits of his elite drop-coverage rim protection (+5.7). Unable to establish any pick-and-pop rhythm, he missed all his perimeter looks and clogged the half-court flow. This stark drop-off from his usual production forced the unit to play four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense -8.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 14.0m -8.8
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Passing up open looks and failing to register a single point dragged down his overall rating in limited minutes. He provided reliable weak-side defensive rotations (+3.5), but his absolute reluctance to shoot killed the team's spacing. This passive offensive pattern has become increasingly detrimental to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 12.3m -7.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 12.0m
3
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

A sudden drop in offensive aggression snapped his streak of highly efficient performances. Floating on the perimeter instead of attacking mismatches resulted in a muted impact score. The lack of defensive playmaking meant he couldn't compensate for his vanishing act on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 12.0m -7.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Solid rotational defense kept him afloat, but a lack of physicality on the interior limited his ceiling. Executing well on his few offensive touches wasn't enough to generate extra possessions or alter the momentum of the game. His minutes were defined by quiet competence rather than needle-moving plays.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 12.0m -7.7
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.5

An explosive turnaround from a brutal shooting slump drove a massive positive impact score. Relentlessly attacking closeouts and finishing efficiently completely changed the geometry of the floor for the second unit. Engaged on-ball defense (+4.6) perfectly complemented his sudden offensive resurgence.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 12.0m -7.6
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Complete invisibility during his brief stint on the floor resulted in a negative rating. Failing to register a single hustle play left him as a non-factor in defensive rotations. The inability to get involved offensively made his minutes essentially empty cardio.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 5.3m -3.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0