GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Jalen Smith 36.7m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Strong individual defensive metrics and high-energy rim runs were completely undone by poor systemic execution during his shifts. He frequently found himself out of position on offensive rebounds, allowing the opposition to leak out for uncontested transition buckets. The raw hustle was there, but the spatial awareness was severely lacking.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.4
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 36.7m -20.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.2

Exceptional positional defense and dominant defensive rebounding stifled the opponent's interior attack. He acted as a massive roadblock in the paint, consistently forcing ball-handlers into low-percentage floaters. Offensively, his ability to execute flawless dribble hand-offs kept the half-court offense fluid and unpredictable.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 36.0m -20.5
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Coby White 31.1m
23
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.1

A barrage of timely perimeter shot-making kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches, though defensive limitations muted his overall impact. He relentlessly punished defenders who went under screens, shifting the momentum with rapid-fire transition triples. However, getting targeted on switches late in the game prevented his net score from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 31.1m -17.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Isaac Okoro 27.8m
7
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.4

Uncharacteristic defensive lapses and a failure to contain point-of-attack penetration tanked his overall value. He was repeatedly blown by on the perimeter, forcing the defense into scramble mode and leading to easy corner looks for the opponent. Despite decent offensive efficiency, his inability to stay in front of his man proved catastrophic.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 27.8m -15.6
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 22.3m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.6

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc and disjointed offensive timing cratered his net impact. He repeatedly settled for contested, early-clock jumpers instead of attacking closeouts to pressure the rim. Defensively, he struggled to navigate screens, leaving his teammates vulnerable to downhill drives.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 22.3m -12.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Giddey 28.1m
19
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.9

Inefficient interior finishing and a tendency to force passes into tight windows slightly dragged down his overall effectiveness. While he successfully pushed the pace and found shooters in transition, his struggles to finish through contact in the half-court led to empty trips. Opponents sagged off him effectively, daring him to shoot and bogging down the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -43.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 28.1m -16.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Ayo Dosunmu 25.0m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Relentless point-of-attack defense and elite transition finishing drove a massive positive impact during his minutes. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation by fighting over screens and generating live-ball turnovers. On the other end, his decisive downhill drives consistently collapsed the defense and created high-value scoring chances.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 25.0m -14.1
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

A catastrophic perimeter shooting slump completely derailed the offense, allowing defenders to aggressively pack the paint without consequence. His inability to punish open closeouts destroyed the team's spacing and led to several empty, momentum-killing possessions. Even a few high-effort defensive rotations couldn't salvage this disastrous stint.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -69.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 15.5m -8.8
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

A complete lack of physical engagement and zero hustle plays rendered his efficient scoring relatively meaningless. He floated on the perimeter defensively, failing to contest shots or dig out crucial loose balls in traffic. The negative impact score highlights a player who simply went through the motions without leaving a physical imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -84.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 11.8m -6.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A disastrous three-minute cameo was defined by blown defensive assignments and erratic offensive decision-making. He immediately surrendered a pair of open driving lanes upon entering the game, forcing the coach to pull him almost instantly. The steep negative rating perfectly captures a stint that actively harmed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 3.0m -1.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely registered a pulse in less than a minute of garbage-time action. He was on the floor for a single negative sequence that slightly dinged his overall rating. A completely inconsequential appearance.

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 0.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Relegated to the final seconds of the game, his impact was virtually non-existent. A minor defensive rotation provided a fractional boost to his metrics, but he largely just ran out the clock. The context of his previous efficient scoring was entirely irrelevant here.

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 0.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Saw the floor for less than a minute, offering no opportunity to establish any rhythm or impact. He was merely a placeholder during a final, inconsequential possession that ended poorly for his unit. His statistical footprint was essentially a ghost.

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 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.1m
46
pts
7
reb
12
ast
Impact
+17.9

Complete offensive mastery dictated the entire flow of the game, resulting in a staggering positive net impact. He systematically dismantled drop coverage by punishing defenders with a barrage of off-the-dribble perimeter daggers. Even when trapped, his surgical passing out of double-teams generated high-quality looks that kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 15/25 (60.0%)
3PT 8/14 (57.1%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 40.2%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +34.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +39.5
Avg player in 38.1m -21.6
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jake LaRavia 33.4m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Elite defensive metrics carried his overall impact, masking a relatively low-usage offensive night. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and generated deflections to fuel transition opportunities. A few timely perimeter makes kept the floor spaced when the half-court sets bogged down.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.0
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 33.4m -18.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S LeBron James 32.9m
24
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite an aggressive scoring surge that eclipsed his recent averages, defensive lapses and empty possessions dragged his overall net rating into the red. His physical downhill drives forced defensive collapses, but settling for contested jumpers late in the clock stalled momentum. The raw production simply didn't translate to winning basketball during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 32.9m -18.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Marcus Smart 32.3m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

A sudden spike in scoring aggression couldn't salvage a performance marred by poor rotational defense and disjointed half-court execution. He repeatedly over-helped on the perimeter, yielding wide-open corner looks that punished the team's defensive rating. While the hustle metrics look decent, erratic decision-making neutralized any positive gains.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 32.3m -18.4
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 22.1m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Passive offensive positioning ruined his impact score, as he failed to establish deep post position against a smaller frontcourt. After a string of dominant shooting nights, his sudden lack of aggression allowed the defense to ignore him and pack the paint. He was frequently outworked on the glass during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -36.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 22.1m -12.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.5

Lethal shot-making and decisive cuts to the basket obliterated the opponent's defensive schemes. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications by sprinting into open space for high-value catch-and-shoot opportunities. This hyper-efficient offensive clinic was perfectly complemented by sturdy, switchable perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 29.3m -16.6
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 22.9m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Vertical spacing and relentless rim protection defined a highly productive stint on the floor. He abandoned his recent high-volume scoring role to focus entirely on setting bone-crushing screens and altering shots around the basket. This disciplined approach anchored the interior defense and sparked several crucial fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +53.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 22.9m -12.9
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Offensive limitations crippled the team's half-court geometry, allowing defenders to aggressively sag off him and clog the paint. While he provided his usual chaotic energy on the glass, his inability to punish defensive neglect stalled multiple possessions. The negative impact score directly reflects how much his lack of shooting bogged down the unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +55.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 16.6m -9.4
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 12.1m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped the second unit's spacing and rhythm. By refusing to attack closeouts or initiate dribble penetration, he allowed the opposing defense to comfortably camp in the passing lanes. A few scattered hustle plays weren't nearly enough to offset the dead-weight possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +44.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 12.1m -6.9
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 0.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

A microscopic stint on the floor was entirely defined by an immediate burst of high-leverage hustle. He managed to tilt the impact score positively by securing a crucial loose ball or executing a flawless defensive rotation in his brief seconds of action. It was a perfect example of maximizing situational deployment.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 0.4m -0.3
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0