GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 40.3m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

Suffocating wing defense completely neutralized his primary assignment, powering a monstrous +11.0 defensive impact score. He paired that lockdown effort with relentless off-ball movement, generating extra possessions through sheer hustle (+6.7). This was a masterclass in two-way wing play that dictated the physical tone of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +11.0
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 40.3m -20.5
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 35.6m
20
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.7

Unrelenting rim pressure and elite foul-drawing manipulation kept the offense afloat, generating a massive +9.8 hustle rating. He consistently broke down the primary line of defense, forcing rotations and creating high-quality looks for teammates. Even without his outside shot falling, his sheer persistence in the paint dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +9.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 35.6m -18.2
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
25
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

Surgical precision from the perimeter forced opposing bigs out of the paint, stretching the defense to its breaking point. He capitalized on every mismatch in the pick-and-pop, driving a massive +11.2 total impact through flawless shot selection. His defensive positioning (+4.5) was equally disciplined, avoiding cheap fouls while contesting the rim.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 34.1m -17.4
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 31.4m
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

A quiet offensive night failed to move the needle, resulting in a slightly negative overall impact (-1.6). He struggled to assert himself against physical perimeter coverage, often settling for contested mid-range looks rather than pressuring the rim. While his defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, the lack of aggressive downhill play limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 31.4m -16.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Hart 27.1m
2
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.0

Offensive spacing completely collapsed when he was on the floor, as defenders blatantly ignored him to clog the driving lanes. Those bricked perimeter looks and forced drives tanked his overall impact (-13.0) despite his typically sturdy defensive rotations (+5.2). The lack of scoring gravity made the half-court offense painfully predictable.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -6.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 27.1m -13.8
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by burying open catch-and-shoot looks, providing a crucial floor-spacing element for the second unit. This hyper-efficient scoring burst forced opponents to abandon their zone concepts. He stayed within his role perfectly, avoiding forced shots to deliver a clean, positive impact (+1.6).

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 26.0m -13.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.1

Absolute chaos creation at the point of attack fueled a staggering +11.1 defensive impact score. He relentlessly hounded opposing ball-handlers, blowing up dribble hand-offs and generating momentum-shifting transition opportunities (+5.2 Hustle). Even with a streaky shooting line, his sheer disruptive energy completely changed the complexion of the game.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +11.1
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 19.9m -10.2
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Uncharacteristic struggles defending the pick-and-roll (-0.3 defensive impact) negated his usual vertical spacing presence. Opposing guards consistently dragged him away from the rim, neutralizing his shot-blocking threat and exposing him in space. Despite finishing his few looks around the basket, the defensive compromises kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -49.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 17.5m -9.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

A disastrously brief stint was marred by forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that immediately killed offensive momentum (-4.0 Total Impact). He looked completely lost within the offensive flow, rushing his decisions against set coverage. The coaching staff had to hook him almost immediately to stop the bleeding.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 4.2m -2.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Logged a quick rotational shift but struggled with defensive positioning (-0.8 Def), allowing easy baseline penetration. He managed to convert his only look at the rim, but the defensive lapses prevented him from earning a longer leash. A mostly invisible performance in garbage-time minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 4.0m -2.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 41.3m
12
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined this marathon shift, yielding an elite +9.2 defensive impact score. He consistently disrupted opposing passing lanes and turned deflections into transition fuel. Even with a slight dip in scoring volume, his athletic rim pressure and defensive versatility kept the rotation afloat.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.2
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 41.3m -21.1
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 38.3m
30
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

High-volume isolation sets cratered his overall efficiency, as he forced too many contested jumpers against set defenses. Despite the gaudy scoring total, the sheer number of empty possessions (-6.7 Total Impact) killed offensive momentum. His inability to generate easy looks ultimately dragged down the starting unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.6%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 38.3m -19.5
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Crisp perimeter shot selection fueled a highly efficient offensive outing that broke him out of a recent shooting slump. He compounded that perimeter gravity with excellent weak-side rotations, driving a strong +3.6 defensive impact. This was a quintessential 3-and-D performance that perfectly complemented the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 35.6m -18.2
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tari Eason 34.7m
11
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Relentless energy on the glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities, reflected in a robust +4.5 hustle rating. However, erratic decision-making in transition likely suppressed his overall net impact into the red. His physical tools were evident, but a lack of polish on fast breaks limited his ultimate effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 34.7m -17.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 31.4m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite positional awareness in drop coverage anchored a massive +9.4 defensive impact score. While his scoring volume dipped slightly from recent trends, his ability to operate as an offensive hub out of the high post kept the half-court offense humming. He dominated the interior matchups without needing to force his own shot.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +9.4
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 31.4m -15.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 6
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack (-1.3 defensive impact) outweighed a highly efficient perimeter shooting display. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on the other end. He knocked down open looks, but the structural damage to the team's defensive shell kept his overall impact negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 21.5m -10.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.7

An absolute cratering of overall impact (-15.7) stemmed from blown defensive assignments and an ongoing crisis of confidence on the perimeter. He was repeatedly late on closeouts, yielding a dismal -3.3 defensive score. Continuing a brutal multi-game shooting slump, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to openly pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.3
Raw total -4.9
Avg player in 21.1m -10.8
Impact -15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 11.3m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Maximized a brief stint off the bench by completely sealing off the paint, driving a stellar +4.0 defensive rating in just over a quarter of action. He provided immediate vertical spacing as a lob threat, forcing the defense to collapse. This short burst of rim-running and rim-protection was exactly what the second unit needed.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +51.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 11.3m -5.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a very brief rotation cameo, resulting in a quick -2.3 net impact. A rushed attempt in the paint and a lack of defensive disruption made him a non-factor. The coaching staff pulled the plug before he could settle into any sort of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -52.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 4.8m -2.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0