GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Anfernee Simons 32.5m
15
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.9

Errant shot selection and a heavy reliance on contested triples severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. He failed to generate any meaningful resistance at the point of attack, allowing opposing guards to walk into the paint at will. The combination of bricked jumpers and matador defense sent his overall impact plummeting.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 32.5m -19.8
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 92.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 30.3m
21
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

High-volume shot-making from the perimeter masked significant struggles with defensive rotations and live-ball mistakes. He frequently lost his man on back-door cuts, allowing easy buckets that erased his offensive contributions. The scoring punch was undeniable, but the underlying structural damage to the team's defense explains the negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 30.3m -18.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaden Ivey 30.2m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Passive offensive execution and a failure to pressure the rim resulted in a stagnant half-court attack during his shifts. Despite grading out reasonably well as an on-ball defender, his inability to collapse the defense starved his teammates of open looks. The severe negative impact reflects a guard who played entirely on the perimeter without dictating the action.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -41.5
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 30.2m -18.3
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A brutal diet of forced perimeter looks tanked his offensive efficiency and fueled opponent transition opportunities. He fought hard in the trenches to generate positive hustle metrics, but the empty offensive trips were too costly to overcome. His shot selection ultimately sabotaged an otherwise gritty, physical performance.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 26.1m -15.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Isaac Okoro 25.9m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers dragged down his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to reset. While his on-ball pressure yielded a positive defensive rating, his inability to finish through contact negated those gains. The overall impact dipped into the red because his offensive spacing proved more harmful than helpful.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 25.9m -15.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.8

A stark departure from his recent hyper-efficient stretch, as forced drives into traffic led to empty possessions and opponent fast breaks. His defensive impact cratered due to poor screen navigation and a tendency to over-help, leaving shooters wide open. The resulting defensive breakdowns and offensive stagnation produced a disastrous overall rating.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.0
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 28.6m -17.4
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.5

Defensive frailties at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to consistently collapse the defense and generate high-value looks. While he showed flashes of improved offensive rhythm, his inability to fight through screens created a persistent structural disadvantage. The overall impact cratered because he was relentlessly hunted on the less glamorous end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 21.9m -13.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Snapping out of a brutal shooting slump, he maximized a low-usage role by knocking down timely, open perimeter looks. His disciplined closeouts and switchability on the wing suffocated the opponent's secondary actions. By refusing to force bad shots and locking in defensively, he engineered a highly effective two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 20.1m -12.2
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.4

Dominant interior positioning and relentless rim-running applied constant pressure to the opposing frontcourt. He anchored the paint with verticality, deterring drives while cleaning up the glass to spark transition opportunities. This highly physical, mistake-free performance drove a massive positive swing in the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 19.4m -11.8
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Relegated to a brief cameo, he provided a quick burst of rotational energy without altering the broader flow of the game. He stayed disciplined in his defensive assignments but simply didn't see enough floor time to impact the scoreboard. The lack of minutes entirely muted his usual interior efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 2.5m -1.6
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

A massive departure from his usual scoring role, as he was deployed strictly for a late-game defensive sequence. He immediately blew up an opponent's set play with active hands and flawless weakside positioning. Though offensively invisible, his specialized defensive execution yielded a surprisingly strong positive rating in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 2.5m -1.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
19
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite a massive offensive breakout that snapped a brutal shooting slump, his overall impact finished in the red. The negative total suggests his minutes coincided with damaging opponent runs or costly live-ball mistakes that erased his perimeter shot-making. He provided strong point-of-attack energy, but the team bled points during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 33.4m -20.3
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 33.4m
22
pts
14
reb
17
ast
Impact
+26.8

Complete mastery of the game's geometry drove a stratospheric overall rating. His flawless decision-making from the high post created a cascade of open looks, while his elite defensive positioning suffocated interior passing lanes. He dictated the tempo entirely, turning every offensive possession into a high-yield scoring opportunity.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +6.1
Defense +14.9
Raw total +47.2
Avg player in 33.4m -20.4
Impact +26.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 3
S Christian Braun 31.7m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

A reluctance to let it fly from deep allowed the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes for others. While his point-of-attack defense remained sturdy, the lack of perimeter gravity stalled the half-court offense during his shifts. His overall impact suffered because he couldn't stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 31.7m -19.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 30.9m
28
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
+7.6

Lethal pick-and-roll navigation and timely perimeter shot-making anchored a highly productive offensive shift. He consistently punished drop coverage by walking into comfortable pull-ups, forcing the defense into impossible rotations. The dual-threat creation masked a relatively quiet night in the hustle categories.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 30.9m -18.8
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cameron Johnson 27.2m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Elite shot selection and clean execution kept his offensive metrics sparkling, but he gave it back on the other end. A lack of secondary playmaking and low-impact weakside defense dragged his overall rating into the negative. He operated strictly as a finisher rather than an offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +38.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 27.2m -16.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 30.9m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Relentless perimeter harassment and timely weakside rotations fueled a highly positive defensive rating. He maintained his streak of hyper-efficient shot selection, refusing to force action and only taking what the defense conceded. This glue-guy performance perfectly bridged the gap between the primary scorers and the defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.1
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 30.9m -18.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
23
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Catching fire from the perimeter snapped a recent cold streak, heavily boosting his offensive rating. However, his overall impact remained neutral due to defensive lapses and a failure to generate looks for teammates. He operated purely as a release valve, offering little resistance when targeted on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 28.5m -17.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Bully-ball tactics yielded efficient interior scoring during a brief stint, but his heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage gave the points right back. Opponents relentlessly targeted his drop coverage, neutralizing his offensive contributions. He provided a quick physical punch but lacked the mobility to survive extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg -53.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 12.7m -7.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to initiate any meaningful sets during his brief rotation. The team bled points in transition while he was on the floor, cratering his overall impact score. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, compounding the damage of his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 7.9m -4.8
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 1.9m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

A fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation yielded a marginally positive rating through sheer energy. He managed to secure a contested board and stay disciplined in his lone defensive sequence. There simply wasn't enough floor time to generate a meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 1.9m -1.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Burned clock in a pure mop-up duty role without registering a single counting stat. His negative grade stems entirely from being on the floor during a quick opponent scoring sequence. He was merely a placeholder until the final buzzer sounded.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0