GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 42.8m
22
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Two-way stability was the hallmark of his performance, blending opportunistic scoring with elite perimeter containment. He consistently punished defensive breakdowns by relocating for open looks, while his +5.1 defensive impact suffocated his primary assignment on the wing. This balanced, mistake-free approach provided a crucial stabilizing force during critical swing moments.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.8m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 42.8m -22.8
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 41.8m
40
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.0

An overwhelming volume of offensive creation drove a massive +13.0 impact, completely breaking down the opponent's defensive shell. Even with a high volume of missed three-pointers, his relentless paint touches and foul-drawing pressure dictated the entire flow of the half-court offense. He carried the primary scoring burden flawlessly, using his scoring gravity to collapse the defense and open up the floor.

Shooting
FG 15/31 (48.4%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.8m
Offense +29.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 41.8m -22.3
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Hart 40.6m
15
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+0.8

Chaotic transition pushes and relentless rebounding generated massive raw production, yet his overall impact remained surprisingly flat. Frequent defensive gambles and blown off-ball rotations allowed the opponent to capitalize on wide-open perimeter looks. He played with his trademark frenetic energy, but the lack of half-court discipline gave back nearly as much value as he created.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 40.6m -21.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Landry Shamet 37.7m
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A trigger-happy approach from beyond the arc yielded diminishing returns, as his barrage of missed threes frequently sparked opponent fast breaks. While he provided decent spacing gravity, the sheer volume of low-quality, contested attempts disrupted the team's offensive rhythm. His defensive effort was passable, but the highly inefficient shot diet ultimately sank his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 37.7m -20.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
22
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Poor perimeter shot selection severely capped his effectiveness, as he repeatedly settled for contested threes instead of exploiting mismatches on the block. Clanking five shots from deep frequently bailed out the defense and sparked opponent transition opportunities. Despite cleaning the glass at a high level, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 31.9m -16.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Hard-nosed screen setting and disciplined rim running maximized his value in limited action. He never demanded touches, instead generating positive impact by sealing defenders deep in the paint and executing perfectly within the flow of the offense. His physical interior presence provided a reliable safety valve whenever perimeter actions broke down.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 20.9m -11.1
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Defensive liabilities and offensive passivity combined to create a glaring hole in the second-unit rotation. He was routinely targeted on switches, bleeding points at the point of attack (-2.4 Def) while offering zero counter-punch offensively. Floating on the perimeter without forcing the defense into rotation made him a severe net negative during his shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -2.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 18.5m -9.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.2

Errant shooting and physical mismatches completely derailed his stint as the backup floor general. Missing all of his perimeter looks allowed defenders to duck under screens, effectively suffocating the pick-and-roll game. Furthermore, bigger guards consistently bullied him on switches, turning his usual point-of-attack peskiness into a glaring defensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 31.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.1
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 18.2m -9.7
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

A complete failure to generate his usual offensive chaos rendered his minutes highly ineffective. He struggled to find any separation against tight perimeter coverage, resulting in empty isolation possessions and stalled ball movement. Without his typical scoring punch to offset his inherent defensive limitations, his presence on the floor was heavily penalized.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 12.6m -6.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Checked in for a brief cameo at the end of a quarter. He did not have enough time to register any measurable impact on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +300.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 37.0m
30
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite defensive versatility (+12.1 Def) drove his massive positive impact, as he completely neutralized his primary matchups on the wing. The sheer volume of his two-way workload kept the opponent on their heels, even when his shot selection grew forced in the half-court. He anchored the frontcourt with relentless energy, consistently turning disrupted passing lanes into early transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 11/26 (42.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +12.1
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 37.0m -19.8
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 36.7m
24
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.7

High-volume creation masked a porous defensive showing that dragged his net impact into the red. His inability to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack consistently forced the defense into rotation, bleeding easy points. The playmaking was crisp, but giving up straight-line drives erased all the value he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 36.7m -19.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 36.5m
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Elite hustle metrics (+8.4) couldn't salvage a stint derailed by poor shot quality and offensive stagnation. His inability to punish closeouts or keep the ball moving allowed the defense to sag off him and clog the driving lanes for others. The relentless energy he brought to 50/50 balls was ultimately offset by empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +8.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 36.5m -19.4
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Micah Potter 28.8m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers severely capped his effectiveness and dragged his net rating into the negative. While he provided solid rim deterrence and generated extra possessions through hustle (+5.5), clanking five threes frequently sparked opponent fast breaks. His floor-spacing intentions were correct for the scheme, but the poor execution short-circuited the offense.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 28.8m -15.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quenton Jackson 28.1m
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.4

Searing perimeter efficiency defined this breakout performance, as he ruthlessly punished defensive rotations from beyond the arc. He maximized his touches without forcing the issue, generating a massive +18.6 box score impact through pristine shot selection. This hyper-efficient scoring burst completely tilted the floor and broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 98.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.3
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 28.1m -14.8
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jay Huff 24.1m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

Stout interior defense and elite hustle (+6.0) more than compensated for a frigid night from beyond the arc. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort on the glass, masking a shot diet heavily skewed toward missed trailing threes. His physical presence in the paint dictated the terms of engagement and deterred drivers all night.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 24.1m -12.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Kam Jones 21.5m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his minutes, as he failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure or spacing gravity. Floating on the perimeter for over 20 minutes allowed his primary defender to freely roam and aggressively dig down on drives. Combined with subpar point-of-attack defense, his inability to threaten the defense resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 21.5m -11.4
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 18.9m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Extreme offensive passivity kept his net impact hovering near neutral despite converting almost all of his looks. He deferred far too often in the half-court, failing to leverage his physical advantages when presented with smaller matchups in the post. While he avoided glaring mistakes, this reluctance to attack prevented him from leaving a meaningful imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 18.9m -10.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 17.2m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Flawless shot selection and opportunistic rebounding drove a highly efficient stint off the bench. By strictly hunting high-value looks, he maximized his offensive footprint without ever stopping the ball or demanding isolation touches. He served as the perfect connective piece, exploiting defensive gaps while maintaining structural integrity on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 17.2m -9.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Relentless rim pressure and surgical mid-range execution allowed him to carve up drop coverages with ease. He dictated the tempo perfectly during his shift, probing the paint without forcing bad passes into traffic. This steady, mistake-free orchestration stabilized the second unit and kept the offense humming at maximum efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 16.3m -8.7
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1