GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 48.5m
5
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.1

An absolute offensive disappearing act cratered his overall value despite logging heavy minutes. Even with solid defensive grading (+5.2 Def), his inability to punish closeouts or hit open jumpers severely handicapped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.5m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 48.5m -23.9
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 48.0m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

High-end hustle metrics (+6.0) and reliable floor spacing kept his impact in the green during a grueling workload. While his overall field goal efficiency dipped slightly, his timely perimeter shot-making punished defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 48.0m -23.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Brunson 47.0m
42
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.7

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and elite shot-making fueled a massive positive impact. Beyond the scoring explosion, surprisingly robust defensive metrics (+8.0 Def) indicated he was fighting through screens and blowing up perimeter actions all night.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 36.6%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.0m
Offense +24.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.0
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 47.0m -23.1
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
24
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.9

Hyper-efficient interior finishing drove a dominant offensive rating. He consistently exploited mismatches in the post, and his steady defensive positioning ensured he didn't give back the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 31.0m -15.3
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Clarkson 23.7m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Provided a highly efficient scoring punch off the bench, elevating his offensive baseline. However, a lack of defensive resistance and minimal supplementary hustle plays allowed opponents to score easily during his shifts, resulting in a slightly negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.7m -11.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Spaced the floor effectively with high-volume perimeter shooting, doubling his recent scoring average. Still, the sheer number of missed jumpers and a failure to pressure the rim kept his overall impact slightly below the break-even point.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 35.9m -17.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.4

Absolute dominance in the hustle categories (+8.7) and flawless interior finishing anchored a stellar performance. His ability to generate second-chance opportunities without wasting a single possession offensively made him highly impactful in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +8.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 23.1m -11.5
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Struggled to find a rhythm from beyond the arc, which stalled offensive momentum during his rotationally allotted time. Minimal contributions in hustle and defensive metrics meant there was nothing to offset the clunky shooting.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 14.4m -7.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 12.7m
1
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.5

Total offensive passivity doomed his stint on the floor. While he competed adequately on the defensive end, his reluctance to look for his own shot allowed the defense to completely ignore him in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 12.7m -6.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Burned through a very short stint with negative value due to empty offensive possessions. Failed to register any meaningful defensive or hustle stats to justify his time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -154.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 3.7m -1.8
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting garbage-time appearance. A single missed shot was the only notable event, leaving his impact score virtually neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.1m -1.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 47.8m
39
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.0

A relentless shot diet yielded high scoring volume, but the sheer number of wasted perimeter possessions severely capped his net impact. Defensive engagement (+4.9 Def) helped offset the inefficiency of his isolation-heavy approach down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 15/33 (45.5%)
3PT 3/14 (21.4%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.8m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 47.8m -23.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Nikola Jokić 44.6m
30
pts
14
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.1

Massive offensive creation drove a highly positive overall rating, though it was heavily taxed by an uncharacteristically erratic shooting night from beyond the arc. Firing a barrage of perimeter shots and missing nearly all of them dragged his efficiency down, but his sheer gravitational pull kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 10/27 (37.0%)
3PT 1/13 (7.7%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.6m
Offense +29.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +33.0
Avg player in 44.6m -21.9
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Christian Braun 43.5m
6
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.7

A severe lack of offensive aggression tanked his overall value in this marathon outing. Passing up open looks and failing to pressure the rim resulted in a massive drop-off from his usual scoring output, leaving the team starved for secondary creation.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.5m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 43.5m -21.3
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Peyton Watson 33.3m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite defensive activity (+6.9 Def) and relentless hustle plays nearly salvaged his overall rating. However, a steep drop in shooting efficiency—highlighted by a brutal string of misses from deep—ultimately flatlined his net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 33.3m -16.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 12.0m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite providing a solid defensive presence (+3.0 Def) and active hustle metrics, his complete inability to generate offense dragged his overall impact into the negative. Missing all of his perimeter looks disrupted the floor spacing during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 12.0m -5.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Sizzling perimeter efficiency provided a massive scoring boost compared to his recent slump. Yet, a lack of supplementary hustle plays and rebounding involvement kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral despite the hot hand.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.9%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.5m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 41.5m -20.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 37.7m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense (+9.6 Def) was the defining characteristic of his night. Unfortunately, a relatively muted offensive output and a slight dip in his normally reliable finishing prevented him from achieving a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.6
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 37.7m -18.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump with highly efficient, opportunistic scoring bursts. Combined with active rotations that generated positive defensive metrics, his bench minutes provided a crucial two-way spark.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.1%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 16.9m -8.3
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Defensive liabilities (-2.3 Def) and a complete lack of offensive involvement rendered his brief stint highly detrimental. Opponents easily exploited his lack of mobility in drop coverage, forcing an early exit from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -36.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 12.8m -6.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2