Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DET lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
DET 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 165 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 4/20 -10.7
Bridges Hard 7/16 +1.3
Hart Hard 2/7 -1.6
Shamet Hard 2/7 -2.5
Clarkson 3/6 +0.2
Kolek Hard 2/6 -0.4
Diawara Hard 2/5 -0.7
Dadiet Hard 1/4 -1.0
Hukporti Open 2/4 -1.4
McCullar Jr. 1/3 -1.2

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Jenkins Hard 7/11 +5.3
Harris Hard 5/11 +2.6
Cunningham 4/11 -2.0
Robinson Hard 3/8 +0.6
Reed 4/8 -0.1
Stewart Open 6/7 +4.5
Huerter 4/6 +1.5
LeVert Hard 3/5 +3.0
Lanier Hard 3/4 +3.3
Holland II Hard 1/4 -2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
DET
29/82 Field Goals 44/83
35.4% Field Goal % 53.0%
8/33 3-Pointers 17/40
24.2% 3-Point % 42.5%
14/17 Free Throws 13/15
82.4% Free Throw % 86.7%
44.7% True Shooting % 65.8%
48 Total Rebounds 49
10 Offensive 8
25 Defensive 36
22 Assists 31
1.47 Assist/TO Ratio 2.38
13 Turnovers 12
6 Steals 10
1 Blocks 6
15 Fouls 21
34 Points in Paint 40
11 Fast Break Pts 19
9 Points off TOs 21
8 Second Chance Pts 9
36 Bench Points 66
4 Largest Lead 43
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Daniss Jenkins
18 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 18.0 MIN
+14.81
2
Javonte Green
8 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 13.5 MIN
+14.46
3
Paul Reed
12 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 26.8 MIN
+13.65
4
Isaiah Stewart
15 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 21.2 MIN
+12.35
5
Jordan Clarkson
11 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 19.4 MIN
+10.8
6
Tobias Harris
15 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 25.9 MIN
+10.59
7
Ariel Hukporti
6 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 22.0 MIN
+8.96
8
Caris LeVert
8 PTS · 1 REB · 6 AST · 18.4 MIN
+8.89
9
Chaz Lanier
7 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 5.8 MIN
+7.44
10
Kevin Huerter
8 PTS · 0 REB · 1 AST · 8.0 MIN
+7.25
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 T. Jemison III STEAL (1 STL) 80–118
Q4 0:08 M. Sasser bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 80–118
Q4 0:32 J. Clarkson tip Layup (11 PTS) 80–118
Q4 0:35 J. Clarkson REBOUND (Off:4 Def:0) 78–118
Q4 0:35 MISS J. Clarkson running Layup 78–118
Q4 0:38 T. Kolek REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 78–118
Q4 0:41 MISS K. Huerter 25' 3PT 78–118
Q4 0:56 C. Lanier REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 78–118
Q4 0:56 MISS C. Lanier 28' running pullup 3PT 78–118
Q4 0:59 W. Moore Jr. REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 78–118
Q4 1:01 MISS K. McCullar Jr. 7' driving Layup 78–118
Q4 1:12 C. Lanier 17' fadeaway Jump Shot (7 PTS) (M. Sasser 2 AST) 78–118
Q4 1:23 P. Dadiet Free Throw 2 of 2 (5 PTS) 78–116
Q4 1:23 P. Dadiet Free Throw 1 of 2 (4 PTS) 77–116
Q4 1:23 K. Huerter shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Dadiet 2 FT) 76–116

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Daniss Jenkins actually won the night
18 points, 4 boards, 3 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+14.8), shot-making (+5.0), and hustle (+4.1), pushing Net Impact to +12.8.
Scoring +14.8
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +5.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Hustle +4.1
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
hidden value
Javonte Green's value was hiding in plain sight
8 points, 3 boards, 0 assists undersells it. scoring (+8.0), defense (+4.7), and hustle (+3.8) pushed his Net Impact to +11.1.
Scoring +8.0
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +4.7
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Hustle +3.8
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Cade Cunningham too hard
11 points, 5 boards, 7 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-5.4) and defense (-0.9), pulling Net Impact down to +2.7.
Turnovers -5.4
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -0.9
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.3
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jordan Clarkson too hard
11 points, 4 boards, 5 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-4.7) and defense (-3.1), pulling Net Impact down to +0.5.
Turnovers -4.7
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -3.1
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.1
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Tobias Harris 25.9m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.5

Methodical post-ups against smaller mismatches yielded steady offense, but slow defensive rotations capped his overall value. He repeatedly got caught in no-man's land on pick-and-pop coverages, allowing clean looks from the perimeter. The veteran scoring stabilized the half-court, yet the defensive bleeding kept his net impact marginal.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +48.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 23.8m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

An absolute masterclass in off-ball defense and weak-side rim protection completely erased his offensive passivity. He blew up multiple pick-and-roll sets by perfectly timing his stunts and recovering to shooters. The scoring was non-existent, but his elite disruption metrics drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +5.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 22.0m
11
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.7

Sloppy ball security in traffic fueled opponent fast breaks, severely undercutting his playmaking efforts. He settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups against drop coverage instead of pressuring the rim. Despite finding open shooters, the live-ball mistakes and poor shot diet resulted in a net negative outing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Isaiah Stewart 21.2m
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Punishing switching defenses, he sealed smaller guards deep in the paint for high-percentage finishes. His physical screen-setting freed up ball-handlers all night, while his stout post defense deterred interior attacks. This was a blueprint for modern bruising big play, blending perfect shot selection with defensive intimidation.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 20.0m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Defenses top-locked him relentlessly, forcing him to rely on his gravity rather than his own shot volume to create advantages. Surprisingly, he generated massive value through active hands in the passing lanes and fighting through screens defensively. He proved he can positively impact a game even when his signature perimeter barrage is neutralized by the scheme.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 26.8m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.3

Relentless activity on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely cuts to the dunker spot, maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient finishing. This high-motor performance perfectly illustrated how to dominate the margins without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +60.8
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense -2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Wild drives into crowded paints led to empty possessions and derailed the offensive rhythm. He salvaged his night by hounding opposing wings, using his length to disrupt dribble handoffs and blow up set plays. The defensive upside is glaring, but the offensive decision-making remains a significant drag on his impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +70.4
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 18.4m
8
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.1

Patient probing out of the pick-and-roll allowed him to dissect the defense and consistently find the roll man. He avoided his usual tendency to over-dribble, instead making quick, decisive reads that kept the offense flowing. A highly efficient, low-mistake floor game provided exactly the right tempo for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.8

Slicing through drop coverage with a lethal combination of floaters and pull-up jumpers, he gave the defense no answers. His aggressive downhill mentality forced early rotations, bending the defense and opening up the entire floor. It was a masterclass in backup guard scoring, dictating the pace and punishing every schematic mistake.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +70.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.1

Completely flipping the game's momentum, he provided terrifying weak-side closeouts and transition leak-outs. He didn't waste a single movement offensively, converting every look while terrorizing ball-handlers on the other end. This is the archetype of a flawless energy shift, maximizing a short stint through pure two-way intensity.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +47.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.9

Failing to organize the offense during his brief stint led to disjointed sets and forced late-clock attempts. Opposing guards targeted him relentlessly on switches, easily shooting over his contests or blowing by him on the perimeter. A brutal combination of offensive stagnation and defensive vulnerability cratered his impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Punishing defenders who went under screens with immediate, confident shot-making instantly stretched the floor. He showed surprising resistance at the point of attack, funneling drivers toward the help rather than getting blown by. A highly productive micro-shift capitalized on every defensive lapse.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Injecting immediate life into the lineup, he confidently attacked closeouts and finished through contact. His unexpected scoring burst caught the defense sleeping, capitalizing on back-cuts when his defender ball-watched. A perfect example of a deep reserve staying ready and completely maximizing garbage-time minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Making his mark entirely on the defensive end, he locked down the perimeter and denied entry passes. He stayed out of the way offensively, ensuring the primary creators had maximum spacing to operate. A quiet but effective rotational cameo built purely on defensive discipline.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 31.1m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Abysmal shot selection from deep completely derailed his offensive rhythm, forcing up heavily contested looks late in the clock. Surprisingly, relentless ball pressure and digging into the post prevented his impact from cratering entirely. He essentially traded his usual scoring dominance for gritty defensive playmaking, though the missed jumpers still left a significant dent.

Shooting
FG 4/20 (20.0%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Mikal Bridges 27.7m
19
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

High-volume shot creation masked underlying defensive lapses that ultimately sank his overall rating. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts, bleeding easy points that erased his perimeter scoring surge. The offensive burst was necessary, but the uncharacteristic off-ball defensive breakdowns proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Hart 25.3m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

A steep drop-off in offensive aggression crippled his overall impact, as he passed up open looks he normally takes. His inability to finish through contact in the paint dragged down the team's half-court efficiency. While his perimeter rotations remained solid, the lack of scoring gravity made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mohamed Diawara 20.6m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

Perimeter hesitancy defined this outing, with clanked outside shots stalling the offense's rhythm. He managed to salvage some value by fighting over screens and blowing up dribble handoffs at the point of attack. Ultimately, the spacing issues he created outweighed his gritty defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Despite remaining perfectly efficient around the rim, a lack of total touches severely limited his usual vertical spacing threat. Opposing bigs successfully fronted him in the post, forcing the offense to look elsewhere and neutralizing his roll gravity. Solid rim deterrence kept him afloat defensively, but the invisible offensive footprint resulted in a slight negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Excellent verticality at the rim altered multiple driving attempts, anchoring the interior defense during crucial second-half stretches. He capitalized on dump-off passes when guards drew two to the ball, finishing decisively through contact. This low-maintenance, high-efficiency role execution perfectly complemented the primary scorers and drove a positive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +7.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Constant off-ball movement generated great looks, but a failure to convert those catch-and-shoot opportunities kept his impact neutral. He compensated for the cold shooting by diving for loose balls and extending possessions with relentless energy. If the perimeter touch normalizes, this type of active performance easily swings into the positive.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -60.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.8

Complete offensive invisibility allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for the primary creators. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, resulting in stagnant possessions that ended in forced shots. A few timely loose-ball recoveries couldn't offset the massive spacing issues he caused.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -41.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Tyler Kolek 19.6m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Over-dribbling against set defenses led to stalled possessions and late-clock bailouts that dragged down the offensive flow. He showed excellent lateral quickness on the other end, staying glued to opposing ball-handlers at the point of attack. However, his inability to initiate clean sets ultimately stifled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -39.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

Decisive isolation attacks against second-unit defenders provided a massive spark to the half-court offense. He read defensive coverages perfectly, choosing the right moments to pull up rather than forcing drives into traffic. This controlled aggression maximized his scoring punch without bleeding value through empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -59.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Maximizing a brief rotation stint, he aggressively attacked closeouts and made quick decisions with the ball. His length disrupted passing lanes on the perimeter, sparking transition opportunities that tilted the floor. It was a highly efficient burst of two-way energy that provided exactly what the bench needed.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Holding his ground admirably against heavier post matchups during a short stint, he refused to yield deep position. He kept things simple offensively, setting hard screens and rolling with purpose to clear out the weak side. A perfectly neutral performance defined by executing the bare essentials of the backup center role.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1