GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
16
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.8

Masterful offensive efficiency and exceptional defensive anchoring drove a massive positive rating. He operated flawlessly from the high post, picking apart double teams while completely neutralizing the opponent's pick-and-roll game. The flawless perimeter execution was just the icing on a fundamentally dominant performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.5
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 34.5m -19.5
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 32.4m
14
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.7

Heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers torpedoed his overall efficiency and dragged down his net impact. While he flashed shot-making upside, his inability to generate rim pressure allowed the defense to stay home on shooters. Defensive lapses in transition further compounded his struggles on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 32.4m -18.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Coby White 32.3m
22
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.8

A heavy volume of missed shots inside the arc severely undercut the value of his hot perimeter shooting. He struggled to finish in traffic, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent run-outs. Despite generating excellent hustle metrics, the poor shot selection on drives ultimately resulted in a negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 32.3m -18.3
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Smith 27.4m
14
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Bounced back from a recent slump by dominating the interior and finishing through contact. His defensive versatility (+4.8) shined as he successfully switched onto smaller guards late in the shot clock. The combination of efficient floor-spacing and rim-running fueled a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 27.4m -15.4
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
S Isaac Okoro 27.1m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Provided steady two-way value by taking high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense. His point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's primary actions, though a few missed perimeter rotations kept his overall impact modest. Thrived as a secondary cutter when the defense overloaded the strong side.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 27.1m -15.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Surgical off-ball movement and elite shot selection resulted in a highly efficient offensive showing. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown, punishing late closeouts without forcing difficult looks. Solid positional defense ensured his offensive contributions translated directly to a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 24.1m -13.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Giddey 23.6m
4
pts
8
reb
10
ast
Impact
-11.4

Disastrous scoring efficiency and a complete inability to threaten the rim cratered his impact score. Defenders blatantly sagged off him, which clogged the driving lanes and ruined the half-court spacing. Even his high-level processing couldn't salvage a shift defined by offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 23.6m -13.3
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Ayo Dosunmu 22.6m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A stark drop in offensive aggression rendered him largely ineffective during his minutes. While he generated decent hustle stats, his inability to break down his primary defender stalled the team's half-court execution. The lack of rim pressure allowed the opposing defense to comfortably stay in their passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.6m -12.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by taking decisive, in-rhythm jumpers instead of hesitating. His highly efficient offensive flashes provided a much-needed spark, even if his defensive impact remained relatively muted. Capitalized perfectly on the defensive attention drawn by the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 16.1m -9.1
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 38.6m
15
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.8

Brutal shooting efficiency dragged down what was otherwise a masterclass in two-way activity. His immense hustle metrics (+4.3) and point-of-attack defense kept his head above water despite clanking numerous open looks from the perimeter. The willingness to take the toughest defensive assignments salvaged his overall rating on an off-shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.7%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.7
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 38.6m -21.8
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaylen Brown 37.1m
33
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.9

Maintained his recent high-volume scoring tear, but his overall impact was heavily buoyed by excellent defensive metrics (+8.1). Despite some perimeter inefficiency, his aggressive downhill attacks consistently collapsed the defense and forced rotations. The sheer offensive workload and rim pressure masked a few erratic shot choices from deep.

Shooting
FG 14/28 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 36.9%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.1
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 37.1m -21.0
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.0

A sharp decline in scoring aggression compared to his recent stretch resulted in a negative overall impact. While he generated strong hustle numbers chasing loose balls, his inability to bend the defense as a primary creator stalled the second unit's rhythm. The offense simply lacked its usual punch when he deferred rather than attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 29.5m -16.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 23.7m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

A significant drop in offensive output didn't prevent him from posting a solid positive net rating, largely thanks to stout positional defense (+6.8). He functioned perfectly as a floor-spacing decoy, executing timely rotations that stifled opponent drives. Even when his typical perimeter volume dried up, his off-ball gravity created driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 23.7m -13.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Amari Williams 10.1m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

This brief rotational stint yielded a slightly negative overall impact due to a lack of offensive involvement. He held his own on the defensive interior during his minutes, but couldn't generate enough tangible production to swing the momentum. Played strictly within himself, though the passive approach limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 10.1m -5.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

Lethal perimeter execution drove a highly efficient offensive showing that kept the spacing wide open. He consistently punished drop coverage by stepping into rhythm triples, forcing the defense to scramble and adjust. Adequate defensive positioning ensured he didn't give back the value he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 27.7m -15.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite rim protection and defensive anchoring (+9.8) completely overshadowed a rare off-night finishing around the basket. He routinely altered shots in the restricted area and generated extra possessions through sheer physical exertion. The interior deterrence alone justified his positive impact score despite the dip in scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.8
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 24.3m -13.7
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 18.0m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Despite highly efficient finishing, his overall impact slipped into the red due to minimal off-ball activity and low hustle metrics. He struggled to stay attached to off-screen shooters, yielding easy looks that negated his offensive contributions. Needs to leverage his length more consistently to disrupt passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 18.0m -10.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 13.5m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Snapped a highly efficient five-game stretch by failing to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups. His negative impact stemmed from an inability to stretch the floor, allowing defenders to comfortably sag into the paint. The lack of offensive rebounding presence further limited his utility in this specific matchup.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 13.5m -7.7
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Maximized a short stint with flawless shot selection and high-energy defensive rotations. His ability to blow up dribble handoffs on the perimeter generated significant defensive value (+4.5) in limited action. Played the role of a sparkplug perfectly without forcing any action outside his comfort zone.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 11.1m -6.3
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a very brief cameo appearance. Rushed a couple of perimeter looks trying to make an immediate mark, which slightly dented his overall rating. Failed to leverage his shooting gravity to create advantages for others.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 6.3m -3.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0