GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 31.3m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.3

A catastrophic shooting night from beyond the arc completely cratered his overall rating. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, which destroyed the team's half-court spacing and led to stalled possessions. Despite decent defensive effort, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense -7.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 31.3m -16.0
Impact -17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Anfernee Simons 31.0m
20
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

High-volume gunning yielded a negative return due to poor shot selection and defensive indifference. He hunted deep, contested threes early in the shot clock, allowing the opposition to get out in transition off long misses. The scoring totals looked fine, but the empty possessions bled away momentum and dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 31.0m -15.7
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 29.6m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Timely perimeter shooting and fantastic transition hustle pushed his impact into the green. By punishing defenders who went under screens, he forced defensive adjustments that opened up the floor. His relentless energy on loose balls (+5.2 Hustle) provided just enough extra possessions to outweigh occasional defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 29.6m -15.1
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Smith 24.3m
9
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

Absolute dominance in paint protection (+16.0 Def) fueled a massive positive swing. He completely walled off the restricted area, altering numerous shots and ending possessions with authoritative rebounding. The offensive inefficiency was rendered entirely irrelevant by his game-wrecking presence as a defensive anchor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +16.0
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 24.3m -12.4
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Josh Giddey 21.4m
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.4

An inability to finish at the rim or stretch the floor severely handicapped the offense during his minutes. Defenders consistently played passing lanes because he posed zero scoring threat, bogging down the offensive machinery. Solid rebounding and defensive positioning couldn't rescue a stint defined by offensive impotence.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.5%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -50.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 21.4m -10.9
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Hesitancy on the perimeter and clanked open looks from deep severely damaged the team's spacing. When he did attack, it was often into traffic, resulting in empty trips that fueled opponent fast breaks. Despite decent rebounding numbers, his lack of offensive gravity dragged the lineup into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 26.8m -13.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 21.9m
12
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.5

Surgical orchestration of the offense and pristine shot selection drove a highly effective performance. He probed the defense patiently, only attacking when clear lanes materialized, which kept the turnover rate virtually non-existent. This steady, mistake-free floor generalship kept the offense humming efficiently.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 21.9m -11.2
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Struggled to find a rhythm against quicker forwards, leading to a slightly negative stint. He settled for contested jumpers rather than utilizing his physical frame in the post. A lack of secondary rim protection allowed opponents to score too easily during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 16.9m -8.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

A quick-strike offensive mentality provided a spark, though his overall impact was muted by limited minutes. He attacked the basket with reckless abandon, generating high-quality looks from the perimeter when the defense collapsed. Aggressive on-ball pressure (+4.1 Def) rounded out a solid, high-energy cameo.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 14.6m -7.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Executed his role perfectly in a brief, highly efficient stint. He set bruising screens, rolled hard to the rim, and capitalized on every touch without forcing the issue. A reliable interior presence on both ends ensured the second unit maintained a positive differential.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 12.4m -6.4
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Defensive frailties at the point of attack were ruthlessly exploited, resulting in a quick negative swing. Opposing guards easily blew past him, forcing the defense into constant rotation and yielding easy buckets. Even with efficient offensive touches, he gave back far too much on the other end to stay on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 9.9m -5.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.6m
31
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.5

Massive offensive usage drove a highly positive impact despite some inefficiency on two-point attempts. His willingness to aggressively hunt his shot broke down the defense, while active hands on the perimeter (+5.0 Def) ensured he wasn't giving points back. A dominant scoring stretch masked the sheer volume of missed mid-range looks.

Shooting
FG 11/26 (42.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 35.6m -18.2
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 33.9m
14
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.0

Elite defensive rotations (+9.8 Def) couldn't salvage an overall negative impact dragged down by clunky offensive execution. He settled for contested looks rather than pressuring the rim, leading to empty possessions that bogged down the transition game. The stellar weak-side help defense kept the game close, but the offensive stagnation proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.8
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 33.9m -17.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
0.0

Perimeter bricklaying completely neutralized his otherwise solid defensive contributions. He consistently fought over screens and applied great point-of-attack pressure (+6.1 Def), but settling for deep, contested jumpers derailed the offensive flow. The result was a perfectly neutral impact where his defensive stops merely paid off his own offensive misfires.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 33.2m -16.9
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.0

Flawless shot selection and relentless energy defined this incredibly high-impact shift. By refusing to force bad looks and instead generating extra possessions through sheer hustle (+6.3), he anchored the interior. His physical post defense completely neutralized his primary matchup, driving a massive +16.0 overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +9.4
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 28.5m -14.5
Impact +16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 24.9m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

A noticeable dip in scoring aggression resulted in a completely flat overall impact. While he struggled to finish through contact in the paint, competent team defense prevented his missed shots from turning into transition points. He essentially played to a draw during his minutes by avoiding disastrous mistakes despite the cold shooting.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 24.9m -12.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.2

Two-way versatility was on full display, anchoring a highly effective stint. He punished defensive closeouts with decisive drives and stayed remarkably disciplined on the perimeter defensively (+8.7 Def). A pivotal second-half stretch of transition stops and trailing threes completely shifted the momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.7
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 22.3m -11.4
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 20.4m
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Gritty point-of-attack defense and loose-ball recoveries drove a positive rating despite a near-total lack of scoring punch. He disrupted opposing ball-handlers relentlessly, turning defensive stops into transition opportunities for teammates. Even with a broken jumper, his sheer motor (+5.2 Hustle) forced the tempo in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 20.4m -10.4
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jakob Poeltl 16.1m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Complete invisibility on the glass and a total lack of rim pressure tanked his overall impact. Opponents easily navigated the paint without fear of interior resistance, while his offensive passivity allowed the defense to trap the perimeter. Failing to secure defensive rebounds ultimately bled away crucial possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 16.1m -8.2
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Provided a steadying presence in limited minutes by taking exactly what the defense gave him. His off-ball movement created high-percentage looks, while active rebounding kept possessions alive. A disciplined approach to spacing the floor ensured a modest but undeniably positive swing when he was on the court.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 15.9m -8.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Rushed perimeter attempts and an inability to find an offensive rhythm resulted in a negative stint. Without his shot falling, defenders aggressively sagged off him, clogging the driving lanes for everyone else. He managed to grab a few long rebounds, but the spacing issues he created were too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 9.2m -4.6
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1