GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 34.1m
26
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.1

Incredible hustle metrics (+8.8) and high-volume three-point shooting fueled a dominant overall performance. Despite missing a large chunk of his jumpers, his aggressive creation and defensive engagement (+6.8) dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +8.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 34.1m -17.8
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 32.6m
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.9

Phenomenal hustle (+7.2) and sticky perimeter defense salvaged a rough shooting night. Even when his jumper wasn't falling, his constant off-ball movement and disruption of passing lanes kept him in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +38.6
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +7.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 32.6m -17.1
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 30.8m
24
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.7

Searing perimeter shooting and lockdown wing defense (+5.7) created a massive two-way swing. Capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed him to significantly outpace his recent scoring averages.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +50.4
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 30.8m -16.0
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Josh Hart 29.8m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.5

Relentless transition pushes and excellent defensive positioning drove a highly positive net rating. Thriving on chaotic plays, he generated high-value looks inside the arc to punish retreating defenders.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 29.8m -15.5
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
20
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.2

Absolute dominance on the glass and elite interior deterrence (+9.4 defense) completely overshadowed a dip in his usual scoring efficiency. Vacuuming up every available miss to deny second-chance opportunities secured a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +9.4
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 29.5m -15.3
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Poor shot selection from the perimeter severely hampered his offensive value. While he offered mild resistance on defense, clanking the majority of his looks prevented him from being a positive rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 18.7m -9.7
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 17.8m
13
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

A massive surge in shooting efficiency from the perimeter sparked a highly productive bench stint. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns to drill open threes vastly exceeded his typical offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 17.8m -9.1
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Confident stroke mechanics allowed him to double his usual scoring output, yet he still finished in the red. Hidden defensive lapses and a lack of secondary playmaking likely dragged down his net score despite the solid shooting splits.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +68.8
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 17.4m -9.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Taking a massive step back in offensive involvement, he attempted just a single shot after a stretch of highly efficient scoring. He still managed to break even by securing the defensive glass and avoiding mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 17.1m -8.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Making the most of his garbage-time minutes, he immediately knocked down a perimeter look. This provided a quick, mistake-free spark at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 4.1m -2.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Completely disappearing offensively, he failed to attempt a single shot after being a reliable scorer recently. A lack of rim protection (-0.5 defense) further contributed to his negative footprint in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 4.1m -2.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Playing a negligible role during his brief time on the court, he converted his only look at the rim. Slight defensive miscommunications kept his overall rating just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 4.1m -2.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 28.4m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.0

A brutal shooting slump cratered his overall impact despite solid defensive metrics (+5.3). Clanking a high volume of perimeter looks and falling drastically short of his recent scoring tear completely neutralized the value he brought on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 28.4m -14.8
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Shaedon Sharpe 27.8m
26
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.7

Elite shot-making efficiency drove a massive +14.6 box score impact. Hunting good looks from beyond the arc and converting at a high clip allowed him to serve as the primary offensive engine for his squad.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 27.8m -14.4
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Toumani Camara 26.4m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.8

Completely vanished from the offense, failing to score a single basket after being a reliable weapon in his previous five outings. His inability to pressure the rim dragged down his overall rating to a team-worst -15.8 despite decent hustle numbers.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 26.4m -13.7
Impact -15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 21.9m
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.0

An uncharacteristically passive offensive night derailed his overall effectiveness. Struggling to generate his usual scoring gravity resulted in empty possessions that overshadowed his standard perimeter defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 21.9m -11.4
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 21.6m
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Anchoring the paint effectively (+3.8 defensive impact) allowed him to provide steady, perfectly neutral minutes. He didn't force the issue offensively, taking high-percentage looks to maintain balance while serving as a reliable rotational big.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -59.1
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 21.6m -11.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Love 27.2m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Heavy perimeter volume yielded diminishing returns, as a barrage of missed three-pointers tanked his offensive efficiency. Surprisingly strong defensive metrics (+5.5) were the only thing keeping his overall impact from completely bottoming out during the erratic shooting display.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 27.2m -14.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 26.8m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.9

Delivering an absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency, he paired a flawless shooting night with off-the-charts hustle metrics (+7.3). This explosive breakout performance completely caught the defense off guard and heavily tilted the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.9%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +7.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 26.8m -14.0
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jerami Grant 22.0m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

A significant drop in scoring volume from his recent hot streak limited his overall influence on the game. While his shot selection was reasonable, the lack of aggressive rim pressure resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -35.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 22.0m -11.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
4
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.1

Dominating the glass and controlling the interior generated a stellar +6.9 defensive impact. His flawless efficiency around the rim continued a strong trend of mistake-free finishing, maximizing his value in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.9
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 20.3m -10.5
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Empty offensive possessions plagued his brief stint on the floor. The lack of secondary stats or defensive resistance compounded the damage of his missed perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -76.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 9.3m -4.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Deep reserve minutes passed without tilting the scales in either direction. He stayed out of the way offensively and avoided costly defensive rotations during garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 4.1m -2.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Failing to attempt a shot or grab a board rendered him a complete non-factor in his limited run. His inability to replicate his recent rotational scoring left him with a slightly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 4.1m -2.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0