GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 37.5m
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

A sharp uptick in scoring efficiency and decisive shot selection fueled a highly productive outing. He seamlessly blended offensive assertiveness with steady perimeter defense to drive a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 37.5m -18.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 34.6m
28
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Masterful offensive orchestration and efficient multi-level scoring drove the highest box score impact on the team. He systematically picked apart the defense in the half-court, ensuring his minutes were overwhelmingly positive despite modest defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 34.6m -16.8
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 32.5m
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Despite hyper-efficient shooting and strong defensive metrics, his overall impact sank deep into the red. A complete lack of secondary playmaking and minimal rebounding meant his individual scoring didn't translate to team-wide success during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 32.5m -15.6
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
S Josh Hart 31.4m
7
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.9

Elite rebounding for his position and relentless hustle plays defined his gritty performance. However, a significant drop in scoring efficiency and offensive hesitancy ultimately resulted in a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +6.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 31.4m -15.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
17
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.7

High-volume rebounding and floor-spacing gravity salvaged a generally inefficient shooting night. He managed to stay in the positive by controlling the defensive glass and drawing defensive attention away from the guards on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 27.1m -13.0
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
0.0

High-energy defensive pressure and active hands kept him afloat despite a rough shooting night from beyond the arc. His offensive struggles perfectly canceled out his gritty defensive contributions, resulting in a completely neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 29.7m -14.3
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.5

Absolute dominance on the glass and elite rim protection fueled a massive positive impact score. He completely neutralized interior threats and generated crucial extra possessions, proving that low-usage efficiency can swing a game.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +49.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.0
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 27.0m -13.0
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

A severe lack of offensive aggression and poor shooting rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor. While his defensive rotations were sound, his inability to punish closeouts dragged his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 17.2m -8.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A brief, ineffective cameo yielded nothing but missed shots and negative momentum. He failed to establish any rhythm or defensive presence before being quickly pulled from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 38.9m
34
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

An explosive scoring surge carried his offensive metrics, but a heavy reliance on inefficient perimeter attempts capped his overall effectiveness. His defensive passivity and lack of hustle plays ultimately dragged a dominant scoring showing back to a neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 38.9m -18.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.6

Severe inefficiency from the field and erratic shot selection cratered his overall impact score. While he provided marginal value through hustle, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions heavily handicapped the team during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 33.5m -16.1
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
11
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.5

High-level playmaking and rebounding established a strong baseline for his positive impact. He balanced his offensive facilitation with steady defensive positioning, ensuring his minutes were consistently productive across both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 32.8m -15.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Nique Clifford 29.8m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Outstanding defensive metrics completely offset a quiet shooting night. He made his mark by disrupting passing lanes and contesting shots, proving his value lies in perimeter containment rather than scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 29.8m -14.3
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

Despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring output, his defensive presence and relentless hustle anchored his overall impact. He generated significant value through high-energy plays and rim protection rather than offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +7.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 23.7m -11.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Exceptional defensive effort and high-motor hustle plays barely kept his impact from plummeting further. His inability to convert looks from the field severely stalled the offense, turning his minutes into a gritty but ultimately negative grind.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.4
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 22.6m -10.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 22.2m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

A stark regression in scoring production and minimal offensive involvement dragged down his net rating. Although he fought hard on 50/50 balls, his inability to stretch the floor or create advantages rendered his minutes a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 22.2m -10.6
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

Dominant work on the glass and efficient finishing around the rim drove a highly efficient stint. His stout defensive anchoring and refusal to force bad shots maximized his value within a limited offensive role.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 22.0m -10.6
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Extreme passivity on offense completely neutralized his usually reliable scoring punch. He offered some resistance defensively, but his failure to engage as a scoring threat allowed the opposition to ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 14.6m -7.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1