GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 33.8m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

A surprisingly potent scoring punch was offset by subtle defensive breakdowns in transition. While his point-of-attack pressure was solid, late rotations on the perimeter kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 33.8m -20.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 30.1m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Defensive dominance (+16.7 Def) completely defined his time on the floor, as he terrorized passing lanes and altered shots at the rim. That elite rim-protection and high-motor activity easily outweighed a somewhat erratic shot selection from deep.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +16.7
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 30.1m -18.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 2
BLK 6
TO 4
S Josh Giddey 27.2m
27
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

An unexpected explosion of perimeter shot-making carried his offensive profile, punishing defenders who went under screens. However, defensive lapses at the point of attack gave back almost all the value he generated with his scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 27.2m -16.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jalen Smith 24.8m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

Bounced back from a scoreless outing with clinical efficiency in the pick-and-pop game. His ability to stretch the floor opened up driving lanes, while disciplined rim protection (+7.4 Def) cemented a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 24.8m -15.2
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
12
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.3

Operated effectively as a secondary hub, using his physical frame to create space and locate cutters. The playmaking value masked a shaky shooting night, allowing him to tread water in the net impact column.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 24.4m -14.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Tre Jones 25.7m
7
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.8

A sharp decline in scoring aggression limited his offensive ceiling, breaking a streak of highly efficient performances. He salvaged his overall impact through relentless ball pressure (+4.9 Def) and diving for loose balls, keeping the damage minimal.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 25.7m -15.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.3

Struggled massively against physical drop coverage, forcing bad looks in the paint that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His inability to anchor the glass or deter drivers resulted in a catastrophic -18.3 net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -7.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total -6.6
Avg player in 19.1m -11.7
Impact -18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump by capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners. His engaged weak-side help defense (+4.3 Def) provided just enough stability to secure a slight positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 15.5m -9.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Tunnel vision and forced drives into heavy traffic completely shattered his recent streak of efficient scoring. While he brought great energy at the point of attack defensively (+5.2 Def), the offensive cratering was too severe to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 15.4m -9.4
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Clanked a series of contested jumpers that derailed the offense's rhythm and led to empty trips. Without his usual scoring gravity to warp the defense, his overall value plummeted into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 12.9m -7.9
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Failed to find any rhythm against longer defenders, rushing his perimeter attempts and coming up empty. A few timely defensive rotations kept things from getting worse, but the lack of offensive punch hurt the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 8.5m -5.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Barely saw the floor, completely halting his recent streak of double-digit scoring performances. His brief cameo featured zero hustle or defensive plays, resulting in a slight negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.6m -1.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Ausar Thompson 32.4m
8
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.6

Elite defensive instincts (+8.7 Def) and active hustle kept him viable on the floor, but severe offensive limitations cratered his overall impact. A barrage of forced, missed shots around the rim neutralized the value he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +8.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 32.4m -19.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tobias Harris 30.3m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Capitalized on favorable matchups to generate a massive scoring surge above his recent baseline. His two-way engagement was stellar, pairing highly efficient shot-making with smothering perimeter defense (+12.9 Def) to drive a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +12.9
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 30.3m -18.6
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 30.2m
18
pts
9
reb
13
ast
Impact
+12.9

Masterful offensive orchestration (+15.5 Box) combined with highly engaged point-of-attack defense defined this elite two-way performance. His ability to manipulate pick-and-roll coverages generated high-quality looks for both himself and his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.9
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 30.2m -18.5
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 28.8m
26
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

Dominant interior finishing fueled a massive offensive rating (+25.9 Box), continuing a streak of highly efficient paint touches. He consistently sealed off defenders to generate high-percentage looks, anchoring the frontcourt with sheer physical force.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +25.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 28.8m -17.6
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 24.0m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Spacing gravity and perimeter shot-making drove a solid offensive rating by punishing defensive rotations. He supplemented his outside touch with active off-ball movement (+4.8 Hustle) to maintain a net positive impact despite minimal defensive resistance.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 24.0m -14.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.6

A brutal shooting slump completely neutralized his offensive value, resulting in a catastrophic -15.6 overall impact. Unable to find his spots against physical coverage, his inability to generate quality looks killed the team's momentum during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 21.3m -13.1
Impact -15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 19.2m
15
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.6

Relentless energy on the glass and elite finishing around the basket (+14.0 Box) powered a massive overall impact. He outworked opposing bigs for second-chance opportunities, translating high-motor play (+5.8 Hustle) into highly efficient offense.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 19.2m -11.8
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Caris LeVert 17.6m
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Stagnant isolation possessions and forced jumpers derailed his offensive rhythm. While he showed flashes of activity in passing lanes (+4.2 Def), the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his net impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 17.6m -10.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite a notable scoring bump compared to his recent slump, offensive flow issues kept him in the negative. His energetic defensive rotations (+5.4 Def) and hustle plays weren't quite enough to overcome empty possessions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 17.0m -10.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Faded into the background offensively with extreme passivity, failing to pressure the rim. Even with decent positional defense, his reluctance to attack matchups allowed the opposition to ignore him and overload elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.4%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 16.6m -10.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely saw the floor but managed to convert his lone perimeter attempt in garbage time. A complete lack of defensive engagement or hustle metrics in his brief stint kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.6m -1.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1