GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 37.4m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Despite solid individual defensive metrics, his inability to space the floor or facilitate crippled the offensive flow during his heavy minutes. Opposing wings sagged off him on the perimeter, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. This lack of offensive gravity ultimately dragged a decent individual performance into deeply negative territory.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 37.4m -20.2
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 36.0m
20
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Forcing up contested perimeter looks resulted in a highly inefficient shooting night that sank his overall impact score. While his weak-side rim protection and switchability were genuinely elite, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions negated that effort. He struggled to find a rhythm against physical closeouts, bleeding value on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 50.1%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +9.5
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 36.0m -19.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Josh Giddey 27.8m
15
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+2.9

Masterful pace manipulation and highly efficient shot selection powered a strong positive rating. He surgically picked apart defensive rotations, capitalizing on open perimeter looks when defenders went under screens. Active rebounding and solid positional defense ensured his offensive orchestrations translated to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.8m -15.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

A complete lack of offensive rhythm and poor shot quality led to a disastrous net impact. He was effectively neutralized in the post, missing his usual physical edge while failing to connect from deep. The second unit bled points during his stints due to his inability to command defensive attention.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 21.3m -11.5
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Collin Sexton 17.8m
10
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

Settling for heavily contested triples short-circuited his usual scoring punch and drove a stark negative impact rating. Without his typical downhill aggression to collapse the defense, the offense stagnated during his shifts. Below-average point-of-attack defense further compounded the damage, allowing opposing guards clean entries into the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 17.8m -9.7
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Tre Jones 27.0m
19
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Relentless penetration into the paint yielded a highly efficient scoring night, though defensive limitations muted his overall impact. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, maintaining a hot streak of high-percentage finishing. However, struggles to contain dribble penetration on the other end kept his net rating nearly flat.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 27.0m -14.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Dominating the interior with physical screen-setting and efficient roll-gravity allowed him to shatter his usual scoring averages. He anchored the unit with disciplined drop coverage, deterring rim attempts and securing contested boards. This blue-collar execution in the paint drove a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 26.7m -14.5
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Pristine shot selection and opportunistic scoring maximized his value during a highly efficient rotational stint. He thrived by cutting baseline and finishing plays without demanding the ball, perfectly complementing the primary creators. Active hands and solid positional awareness on defense cemented a solid positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 23.2m -12.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.1

Errant finishing around the basket tanked his offensive value, offsetting a surprisingly robust defensive performance. While he navigated screens well to generate positive defensive metrics, his inability to convert high-leverage looks stalled the offense. The lack of scoring punch ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -47.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 22.9m -12.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 36.4m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Despite a rough shooting night where perimeter attempts repeatedly drew iron, his value remained positive due to relentless defensive pressure. High-motor rotations and contested closeouts completely salvaged an otherwise inefficient offensive outing.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +6.7
Defense +8.2
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 36.4m -19.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 34.9m
27
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

An absolute offensive clinic drove a massive positive impact, fueled by pristine shot selection and lethal perimeter execution. He punished mismatches in isolation all night to easily eclipse his recent scoring averages. The defensive metrics were perfectly neutral, meaning his overall value was entirely generated by elite scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +25.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 34.9m -19.0
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jrue Holiday 32.2m
10
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.2

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance completely tanked his overall impact score, as he forced contested looks while missing all his deep attempts. While his point-of-attack defense remained stout, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. The stark drop-off from his usual scoring efficiency created a massive negative swing for the unit.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 32.2m -17.6
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kris Murray 28.1m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Blanking from beyond the arc capped his offensive ceiling, but a sudden surge in overall aggression doubled his usual scoring output. He anchored his positive net impact through timely weak-side help and active hands in the passing lanes. This gritty two-way effort offset the perimeter struggles perfectly.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 28.1m -15.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Scoot Henderson 23.9m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Settling for low-quality perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive rating, evidenced by a complete blanking from beyond the arc. He found success attacking the paint to maintain a respectable box score, but defensive lapses and poor floor spacing dragged his net impact into the red. Opposing guards consistently exploited his positioning during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.9m -12.9
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.5

Completely dominated the paint on both ends, anchoring a staggering net rating through elite rim protection and hyper-efficient finishing. He deterred countless drives to the basket, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters all night. Continuing a streak of pristine shot selection, he punished mismatches inside to shatter his recent scoring averages.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +12.2
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 22.6m -12.2
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Confident perimeter execution provided a steady offensive lift, though his overall impact remained modest. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities when the defense collapsed, keeping the floor spaced effectively. A lack of high-level defensive disruption prevented his score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 18.6m -10.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 17.1m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Elite hustle metrics barely kept his head above water during a quiet offensive stint. He generated extra possessions through sheer physical effort on loose balls, compensating for a lack of scoring gravity. His defensive rotations were sharp enough to ensure his limited minutes yielded a marginal positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +7.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 17.1m -9.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Blake Wesley 14.4m
10
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.2

Slashing to the rim with sudden efficiency allowed him to double his usual scoring output in a short burst. However, a lack of rebounding and minimal defensive presence kept his overall impact nearly flat. His ability to break down the primary defender was a bright spot, even if the holistic value was muted.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 14.4m -7.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.3

Wreaked absolute havoc in limited minutes, generating a massive impact spike through elite disruption rather than scoring. His signature event-creation on defense translated into transition opportunities, perfectly highlighted by his stellar hustle metrics. He completely derailed the opponent's secondary unit during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +7.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 11.7m -6.4
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0