GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 30.6m
20
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.1

A brutal perimeter shooting slump dragged down what was otherwise a high-volume playmaking effort. He repeatedly forced heavily contested pull-up threes early in the clock, bailing out a defense that was struggling to contain his drives. The sheer volume of empty perimeter possessions negated the value he created when attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg +45.6
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 30.6m -13.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 29.9m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

A shocking lack of assertiveness cratered his overall impact, as he routinely passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities. By refusing to punish closeouts, he allowed the defense to pack the paint and stifle the primary initiators. Even his normally elite point-of-attack defense lacked its usual bite, allowing too many straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +48.8
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 29.9m -12.9
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Hart 25.2m
11
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Absolute perfection on his shot attempts maximized his offensive footprint, punishing the defense every time they left him unguarded. He thrived as a connector in transition, consistently making the right read on the break. His ability to secure contested long rebounds and immediately ignite the fast break defined his highly efficient stint.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 25.2m -10.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 24.6m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Methodical and precise shot creation in the mid-range punished defenders who tried to run him off the three-point line. He masterfully utilized hostage dribbles out of the pick-and-roll to dictate the pace of the half-court offense. Defensively, his length navigating through off-ball screens completely neutralized his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 24.6m -10.6
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.8

Highly efficient floor-spacing from the center position warped the opposing defensive shell and opened up massive driving lanes. He expertly manipulated drop coverage, stepping out for trailing triples that punished retreating bigs. Despite a slight dip in his usual scoring volume, his gravitational pull on the perimeter drove a highly successful offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +51.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 20.3m -8.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.2

Completely flipped the momentum of the game with suffocating point-of-attack defense that generated live-ball turnovers. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by confidently stepping into transition threes, shattering his recent scoring slump. His relentless energy navigating over screens made life miserable for the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +90.3
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 19.2m -8.1
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Dominated the restricted area with textbook verticality and a flawless conversion rate on his rim-runs. He completely erased multiple driving attempts by rotating perfectly from the weak side. His relentless effort to seal his man deep in the paint generated easy lob opportunities that kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +62.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 16.7m -7.1
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.3

An absolute supernova performance from beyond the arc completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. He relentlessly punished late rotations, utilizing lightning-quick releases off pin-down screens to hit every single perimeter look he took. Surprisingly, he paired this offensive explosion with tenacious on-ball pressure, resulting in a staggering two-way impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 6/6 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 128.6%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +81.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 15.2m -6.5
Impact +21.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Overcame a dreadful shooting performance by surprisingly locking in on the defensive end of the floor. He consistently beat his man to the spot, cutting off driving angles and racking up crucial deflections. This unexpected grit in the passing lanes salvaged a shift that would have otherwise been derailed by his forced isolation jumpers.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +97.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 12.0m -5.2
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Made his mark through sheer physicality on the defensive interior rather than offensive production. He effectively walled off the baseline against driving wings, absorbing contact without fouling. While his offensive touch was absent, his ability to set bone-crushing screens freed up the guards for clean looks.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 11.4m -5.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided functional emergency minutes by simply executing the defensive scheme without overextending himself. He held his ground adequately in the post, forcing opponents into tough, contested hooks rather than conceding deep position. Offensively, he stayed out of the way, resulting in a quiet but perfectly acceptable net-neutral stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +110.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 11.0m -4.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Orchestrated the second unit with calm, methodical pacing that prevented opposing runs. He probed the defense patiently out of the pick-and-roll, finding the soft spots in the mid-range to knock down timely jumpers. His disciplined closeouts on the perimeter ensured he wasn't targeted defensively.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +61.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 9.6m -4.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Capitalized beautifully on defensive breakdowns, finding the open seams for high-percentage finishes. He showed excellent spatial awareness, drifting to the corners at the exact right moment to punish collapsing defenses. This opportunistic scoring punch provided a massive lift to the bench unit's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +48.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 7.8m -3.5
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Operated purely as a cardio presence on offense, failing to attempt a single shot or draw defensive attention. Because his defender could completely ignore him, the floor shrank considerably for his teammates. He avoided being a massive negative only by executing his defensive rotations with adequate timing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 6.7m -2.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

A heavy volume of forced perimeter jumpers tanked his overall impact despite decent defensive engagement. He settled for contested looks early in the shot clock rather than attacking closeouts, resulting in empty possessions. His length still provided a plus-presence in the passing lanes, keeping his defensive metrics afloat.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -51.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 25.5m -11.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Drake Powell 25.2m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

Poor shot selection from the perimeter heavily dragged down what was otherwise a solid rotational defensive shift. He repeatedly forced contested looks against set defenses instead of moving the ball, blanking entirely from beyond the arc. However, his active hands navigating through off-ball screens helped mitigate some of the damage on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -54.8
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 25.2m -10.7
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 23.3m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Flashes of floor-spacing potential were overshadowed by a lack of physicality in the paint. While he capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities to exceed his recent scoring averages, he routinely lost positioning on blockouts. That inability to secure the defensive glass allowed crucial second-chance opportunities for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -44.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 23.3m -10.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nic Claxton 23.2m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Offensive struggles were completely masked by an absolute masterclass in rim protection and switchability. He abandoned his usual interior scoring rhythm but made up for it by blowing up pick-and-rolls on the perimeter. His relentless weak-side rotations deterred multiple drives and anchored the defensive unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -54.7
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +6.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 23.2m -10.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Egor Dëmin 20.9m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

Continual struggles to create separation off the dribble led to stagnant offensive possessions and a brutal overall rating. Opposing guards easily absorbed his drives, forcing him into low-percentage bailout heaves at the end of the clock. Compounding the issue, he frequently lost his man on backdoor cuts during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -44.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 20.9m -9.0
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Bruising interior play and excellent screen-setting kept his impact near neutral despite a lack of offensive polish. He generated crucial extra possessions by outmuscling opposing bigs on the offensive glass. A tendency to bite on pump fakes around the basket slightly undercut his otherwise stellar rim-deterrence metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -82.6
+/- -36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 23.9m -10.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.1

Elite two-way energy defined this stint, with his relentless transition running punishing a retreating defense. He perfectly balanced aggressive downhill attacks with disciplined closeouts on the perimeter. A pivotal third-quarter stretch of deflections leading to fast-break finishes showcased his immense ceiling as a disruptor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -65.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +7.3
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 19.4m -8.3
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Nolan Traore 18.6m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.3

An absolute offensive void in this matchup, completely failing to initiate sets or pressure the rim. Defenders sagged off him entirely, blowing up the team's spacing and stalling out the half-court offense. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack only magnified the massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -54.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.9
Raw total -7.2
Avg player in 18.6m -8.1
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Thomas 15.6m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

An uncharacteristically passive approach and a string of clanked isolation jumpers severely limited his effectiveness. Without his usual scoring gravity drawing double teams, the offense bogged down during his minutes. He showed brief flashes of defensive effort fighting over screens, but it wasn't enough to salvage a highly inefficient shift.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -64.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 15.6m -6.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 12.3m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Failed to establish any inside-out rhythm, looking hesitant when catching the ball in the high post. His lack of assertiveness allowed the defense to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. While he maintained verticality on a few defensive challenges, the overall passivity resulted in a net negative shift.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -44.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 12.3m -5.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Terance Mann 10.7m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Offensive rhythm completely collapsed due to a series of rushed, out-of-rhythm floaters in traffic. He struggled to read the weak-side help, driving directly into defensive traps and killing possession momentum. Though he chased shooters adequately on the perimeter, his inability to bend the defense proved costly.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -73.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 10.7m -4.7
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 10.7m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to make decisive cuts or demand the ball in advantageous spots. This extreme passivity allowed his defender to roam freely as a free safety, disrupting the team's entire spacing concept. He did salvage some value by diving for loose balls, but the lack of offensive threat was glaring.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -73.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 10.7m -4.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided a stabilizing, low-mistake presence during a choppy rotational stretch. He stayed within his role, spacing the floor adequately and making the right extra pass against rotating defenses. A key sequence of denying dribble penetration in the second quarter highlighted his fundamentally sound defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -73.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 10.7m -4.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0