GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 33.0m
32
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.7

An absolute masterclass in shot creation and perimeter execution drove this dominant performance. He ruthlessly exploited defensive mismatches, pouring in highly efficient offense from all three levels. This explosive scoring outburst completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 33.0m -19.0
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 27.1m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Clanking a high volume of outside shots completely negated his otherwise solid defensive effort. The opponent sagged off him aggressively, daring him to shoot and effectively blowing up Chicago's spacing. This offensive stagnation dragged his net rating firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -53.6
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 27.1m -15.6
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Settling for perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint limited his offensive ceiling. While he provided decent weak-side help defensively, his shot diet was heavily skewed toward low-percentage outside looks. The lack of interior pressure resulted in a marginally negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 26.6m -15.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Despite a massive leap in scoring efficiency compared to his recent slump, defensive lapses in transition ruined his overall impact. He knocked down his spot-up looks but repeatedly lost his man on back-cuts and fast breaks. The defensive bleeding ultimately overshadowed his offensive resurgence.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 25.9m -15.0
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Josh Giddey 25.8m
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.5

Poor finishing in the paint and a lack of perimeter gravity severely damaged his offensive impact. Defenders consistently went under screens, daring him to shoot and bogging down the half-court offense. Even his strong defensive rebounding couldn't salvage the massive negative value of his missed attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense -6.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 25.8m -14.8
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Uncharacteristic passivity and a sharp drop in scoring volume neutralized his usual offensive punch. He struggled to generate downhill momentum, allowing the defense to stay set and easily contain his drives. The lack of rim pressure snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient performances.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 28.4m -16.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.5

Forcing heavily contested shots in isolation completely derailed the offensive flow during his minutes. His inability to break down his primary defender led to empty possessions and opponent transition opportunities. The sheer volume of wasted offensive trips resulted in a massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 23.3m -13.3
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Failing to secure the defensive glass allowed the opponent to generate costly second-chance opportunities. While he finished his limited looks around the rim, his lack of physicality in the paint was a glaring weakness. The inability to anchor the middle dragged down his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -47.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 21.9m -12.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Jones 20.0m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

A shocking collapse in offensive efficiency snapped his recent hot streak and cratered his impact. He completely lost his touch around the basket, missing a slew of floaters and layups he normally converts. This sudden inability to punish drop coverage stalled the offense entirely.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 20.0m -11.5
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Perfect shooting execution in a tiny window provided a quick, positive jolt to the lineup. He didn't force the issue, simply capitalizing on the few defensive breakdowns that came his way. It was a highly efficient, mistake-free cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 5.0m -2.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Barely registering on the game's radar, his brief appearance was defined by cardio rather than contribution. He failed to involve himself in the offense or make a dent on the glass. The stint was too short to cause major damage, but he was effectively a ghost on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.0m -1.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Moussa Diabaté 30.6m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.1

Flawless rim-running and elite defensive anchoring produced a monster overall rating. He refused to force bad shots, maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the basket. His paint deterrence completely erased the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +14.0
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 30.6m -17.6
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 25.4m
23
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.3

High-volume perimeter execution kept the offensive engine humming. He hunted mismatches on the wing, converting difficult isolation looks while providing solid weak-side defensive rotations. Continuing his recent hot streak, his shot selection remained pristine.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.7
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 25.4m -14.6
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S LaMelo Ball 23.2m
16
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.2

Heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers torpedoed his overall efficiency. While he generated some offensive flow, the sheer volume of low-percentage outside attempts dragged down his net impact. His shot diet heavily favored difficult pull-ups over rim pressure.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +60.8
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 23.2m -13.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 22.5m
21
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

A relentless barrage of high-quality perimeter looks drove his massive positive impact. He capitalized on defensive rotations to generate efficient offense without bleeding value through mistakes. His floor-spacing gravity consistently warped the opposing scheme.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +45.4
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 22.5m -12.9
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 22.3m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.4

Defensive versatility anchored this highly effective stint. He paired aggressive closeouts with efficient spot-up execution to dominate his matchup on both ends. The ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions created a suffocating defensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +10.8
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 22.3m -12.8
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Sion James 19.6m
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.2

A total lack of scoring gravity cratered his offensive impact. Opposing defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the driving lanes for his teammates. Continuing a brutal offensive slump, he was an active detriment to the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 19.6m -11.4
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Timely floor spacing from the corners kept the offense breathing during key stretches. He capitalized on defensive neglect to knock down open looks, shaking off a recent string of poor shooting nights. His sturdy post defense prevented opponents from exploiting switches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 19.3m -11.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 16.9m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Breaking out of a severe slump, his opportunistic cutting and spot-up execution provided a massive spark. He supplemented his sudden offensive resurgence with high-motor hustle plays that extended possessions. This energetic two-way burst completely flipped his recent negative trajectory.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +53.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 16.9m -9.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped his minutes on the floor. He failed to register a single field goal attempt, turning into an offensive zero despite offering some mild rim protection. The inability to make himself a lob threat allowed the defense to trap the ball-handlers freely.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 16.7m -9.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Coby White 15.6m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

A noticeable dip in offensive aggression limited his ability to influence the game. He settled into a passive off-ball role, failing to generate the downhill rim pressure that usually defines his stints. The lack of secondary playmaking resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 15.6m -9.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Forcing up contested perimeter looks resulted in empty possessions that stalled the offense. The sheer volume of missed outside shots outweighed his minor contributions on the glass. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, compounding his negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 13.1m -7.5
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 7.8m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Instant offense and disruptive point-of-attack defense defined this highly productive cameo. He attacked closeouts decisively, generating high-value looks in a very short window. His aggressive ball pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm perfectly.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 7.8m -4.5
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Brief but stabilizing, his stint was defined by positional discipline rather than raw production. He set solid screens and executed defensive rotations without making costly mistakes. It was a neutral shift that simply kept the ship steady while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 7.1m -4.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0