GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 37.7m
33
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.3

Masterful shot creation and high-efficiency scoring fueled a massive box score impact. Elevating his offensive production well above his recent baseline, he also managed to contribute surprisingly positive defensive value to secure a strong net rating.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 37.7m -21.8
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S OG Anunoby 31.6m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

Brutal perimeter shot-making cratered his offensive value and dragged his overall score deep into the negative. While he still provided his standard positive defensive resistance, the sheer number of empty offensive possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 31.6m -18.3
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
21
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Consistent offensive execution and a strong interior presence drove a highly positive box score rating. He anchored his minutes effectively by pairing steady shot creation with reliable defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 30.9m -17.9
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Hart 27.8m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

A surprising lack of hustle plays from the normally energetic wing contributed heavily to his negative total impact. Even with efficient finishing and decent defensive metrics, he failed to generate his usual chaotic value on the margins.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 27.8m -16.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 25.5m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Blanking completely from three-point range severely limited his offensive ceiling and tanked his overall rating. Despite maintaining positive hustle and defensive metrics, his inability to stretch the floor or hit his usual scoring marks proved detrimental.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 25.5m -14.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

A massive scoring surge compared to his recent slump kept his overall impact barely in the positive. Exceptional hustle metrics largely compensated for the slightly inefficient volume he required to get his perimeter shots to fall.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 28.2m -16.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.9

Missing all of his three-point attempts derailed his offensive efficiency and dragged down his net score. While he provided his trademark backcourt hustle, the sheer number of wasted perimeter possessions was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 20.5m -11.9
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Elite defensive rim protection served as the primary catalyst for his strong positive rating. He maximized his low-usage offensive role by continuing a long streak of highly efficient interior finishing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 19.2m -11.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Strong defensive metrics and flawless execution on his lone shot attempt drove a highly efficient brief appearance. He played perfectly within his role, letting his hustle and positioning dictate his positive impact rather than forcing offense.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 9.9m -5.7
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Generated a positive impact entirely through energy and defensive rotations without taking a single shot. High-level hustle in very limited minutes proved he didn't need to score to be an effective rotation piece.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 8.6m -5.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 38.5m
42
pts
8
reb
13
ast
Impact
+15.6

Carrying a massive offensive burden, his high-volume shot creation and perimeter shot-making fueled an elite overall rating. He managed to pair this heavy usage with surprisingly stout defensive metrics, proving highly effective on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 17/34 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +27.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.7
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 38.5m -22.2
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Tobias Harris 31.6m
11
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.6

A severe regression in shot-making tanked his overall impact after a recent stretch of hyper-efficient scoring. While he provided solid defensive resistance, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his net score deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.0%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 31.6m -18.2
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ausar Thompson 30.8m
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.7

Elite activity levels on the margins fueled a positive overall rating, highlighted by superb hustle and defensive metrics. He capitalized on his offensive touches effectively, providing a noticeable scoring bump over his recent baseline without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 30.8m -17.9
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paul Reed 29.4m
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.7

Hyper-efficient interior finishing drove a massive box score rating as he extended his streak of high-percentage shooting nights. Beyond the offensive surge, he anchored the paint with excellent defensive execution to cement a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.6%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 29.4m -17.0
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 20.7m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A sharp drop in scoring volume from his recent baseline limited his offensive influence despite efficient perimeter execution. With minimal hustle or defensive contributions to fall back on, his overall impact slipped into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 20.7m -12.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Solid defensive positioning and timely hustle plays kept his overall impact safely in the green. He provided just enough efficient complementary offense to support his strong work on the margins without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 20.2m -11.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Caris LeVert 20.1m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

High-level defensive execution served as the primary driver of his positive rating during his stint. He supplemented this perimeter disruption with selective, efficient outside shooting to maintain a steady two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 20.1m -11.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Tolu Smith 18.5m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Despite doubling his usual scoring output and showing great activity on the glass, defensive lapses dragged his net rating down. He struggled to anchor his matchups effectively, which ultimately negated the value of his efficient interior touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense -1.3
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 18.5m -10.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

A steep drop in offensive production combined with poor defensive metrics tanked his overall score. Even though he converted the few looks he took, his inability to generate his usual volume or contain opponents proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 18.2m -10.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Reversing a recent shooting slump, perfect execution from the floor drove a highly efficient stint. He maximized his brief time on the court by pairing this flawless shot selection with excellent hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 12.2m -7.1
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0