GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 33.0m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Defensive lapses and an inability to contain dribble penetration severely undercut his usually reliable two-way profile. While he found some success spacing the floor, he was uncharacteristically slow on closeouts, allowing easy driving lanes. This breakdown at the point of attack negated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 33.0m -17.0
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Sturdy post defense and timely perimeter shooting balanced out a relatively low-motor performance. He effectively neutralized his primary matchup in the paint, using his frame to deny deep catches. A lack of transition hustle prevented him from registering a more significant positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 29.7m -15.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 26.0m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

A barrage of contested, low-percentage perimeter shots completely derailed his offensive efficiency. He struggled to read the defense, frequently forcing the issue rather than keeping the ball moving. This poor decision-making stalled out several critical possessions and fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 26.0m -13.3
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Giddey 23.0m
6
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.8

Severe finishing struggles around the basket and a broken jumper rendered him an offensive liability. Although he competed hard defensively and disrupted passing lanes, his inability to punish drop coverage allowed the defense to sag off and clog the paint. His playmaking couldn't overcome the spacing issues his shooting created.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 23.0m -11.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Smith 18.2m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Active hands in the paint and a willingness to battle for positioning yielded a solid positive impact. He capitalized on second-chance opportunities and provided a noticeable energy boost off the bench. His ability to stretch the floor slightly kept the opposing bigs honest and opened up driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 18.2m -9.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.2

While he showed surprising flashes as a secondary playmaker, his over-reliance on the three-point shot dragged down his efficiency. He settled for perimeter looks early in the clock instead of attacking closeouts, bailing out the defense. The increased offensive usage didn't translate to a positive net rating due to these empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 27.6m -14.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.7

A balanced but unremarkable performance left him hovering just below neutral impact. He navigated screens well defensively but struggled to create separation on the other end against physical coverage. Ultimately, he blended into the background without making any decisive plays to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 24.1m -12.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Despite controlling the defensive glass, his overall impact was muted by a lack of offensive involvement and slow defensive rotations. He secured possessions effectively but failed to alter shots at the rim with his usual authority. The opposition successfully pulled him away from the basket in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 23.0m -11.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Tre Jones 22.9m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

A sudden regression in scoring efficiency and a failure to dictate the tempo resulted in a slight negative impact. He struggled to break down his defender off the dribble, leading to stagnant half-court sets. The lack of rim pressure allowed the defense to stay glued to the perimeter shooters.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 22.9m -11.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless downhill attacking during a brief stint completely energized the second unit. Even with a dip in scoring volume, his sheer pace and defensive tenacity disrupted the opponent's rhythm. He maximized his limited minutes by forcing the action and creating chaos in transition.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 12.4m -6.4
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 36.4m
19
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.7

Inefficient volume shooting and forced looks from deep dragged down his overall effectiveness. While he generated offense through penetration, the sheer number of empty possessions from missed jumpers outweighed his playmaking contributions. Opponents successfully baited him into contested isolation attempts down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 43.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 36.4m -18.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 33.5m
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Despite a massive dip in offensive production and perimeter shooting struggles, his defensive metrics kept his overall impact afloat. His ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots on the wing offset the damage from his cold shooting night. A lack of scoring punch ultimately capped his ceiling in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.2
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 33.5m -17.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Josh Hart 32.7m
11
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.8

Elite shot selection and relentless energy on loose balls drove a highly efficient two-way performance. He capitalized on every offensive opportunity without forcing the issue, letting the game come to him. His knack for extending possessions through sheer hustle solidified a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 32.7m -16.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
28
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.8

A dominant floor-stretching display from the perimeter completely warped the opposing defense and fueled a massive net positive rating. He paired this offensive gravity with disciplined rim protection, avoiding cheap fouls while contesting effectively. This dual-threat capability dictated the flow of the game whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +5.9
Defense +8.9
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 32.2m -16.6
Impact +19.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 30.2m
11
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

Smothering point-of-attack defense salvaged an otherwise pedestrian offensive outing. He struggled to find his rhythm inside the arc, but his constant pressure on the ball handler prevented his overall impact from slipping into the negative. His value remains heavily tied to his defensive assignments when his shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.3
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 30.2m -15.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Destructive shot selection from beyond the arc torpedoed his value and stalled the offense. His trademark backcourt pressure couldn't compensate for the wasted possessions and rushed jumpers early in the shot clock. The opposing defense gladly dared him to shoot, and he played right into their hands.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 25.1m -12.9
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

A sudden surge in perimeter scoring masked significant defensive liabilities that ultimately resulted in a negative net impact. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, giving back almost everything he generated on the offensive end. The hot shooting was a welcome surprise, but his inability to stay in front of his man proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.3m -12.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.2

Exceptional rim deterrence in limited minutes provided a massive boost to the second unit. He altered several shots in the paint and maintained verticality, proving highly disruptive without needing offensive touches. This defensive anchoring completely shifted the momentum during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 15.1m -7.8
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

A passive offensive approach and limited court time resulted in a negligible overall footprint. He failed to assert himself in the half-court offense, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring performances. His defensive rotations were adequate, but he lacked the aggression needed to move the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -43.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 11.4m -5.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0