GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 34.9m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Elite disruption in the passing lanes and relentless hustle (+7.0) drove a highly positive rating despite a dip in his scoring volume. He perfectly executed his role as a defensive anchor on the wing, shutting down primary actions to fuel transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 34.9m -15.4
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 33.2m
25
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.9

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, pairing suffocating perimeter defense (+9.3) with lethal shot-making. Exploding out of a recent scoring slump, his ability to consistently punish drop coverage defined the entire game flow.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.3
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 33.2m -14.6
Impact +19.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 32.4m
24
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.7

High-level offensive orchestration generated a massive box score boost, but defensive liabilities at the point of attack severely capped his overall impact. Opponents consistently targeting him in pick-and-roll actions bled away much of the value he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.7
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 32.4m -14.3
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Hart 29.6m
10
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.9

A brutal shooting night was completely salvaged by his trademark chaotic energy and elite rebounding instincts. Generating extra possessions through sheer willpower (+4.5 hustle) ensured he remained a net positive despite the offensive clanks.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 29.6m -13.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Stepping up as an interior deterrent (+5.0 defensive impact) kept his score afloat while his usual high-volume scoring took a back seat. He sacrificed his own offensive touches to anchor the paint, breaking from his recent pattern of dominating the stat sheet.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 28.2m -12.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Surprisingly stout perimeter containment (+5.5 defensive impact) elevated his rating well above his typical baseline. He overcame a streaky shooting night by chasing shooters off the line and executing defensive rotations flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 25.0m -11.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

A failure to convert open looks derailed his offensive value and dragged his overall rating into the red. Despite bringing his usual backcourt pressure (+2.1 defense), the inability to punish sagging defenders stalled out second-unit possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +61.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 17.1m -7.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Dominant rim protection (+5.0 defensive impact) salvaged a nearly invisible offensive performance. While he maintained his streak of perfect efficiency on minimal touches, his inability to command the ball severely limited his ceiling in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 15.1m -6.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Unapologetic volume from beyond the arc stretched the defense, allowing his overall impact to stay positive despite the sheer number of misses. His sudden willingness to act as a primary floor-spacer completely shifted the offensive geometry compared to his recent quiet outings.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.5%
Net Rtg +68.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 14.9m -6.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation resulted in a negative score due to a forced, empty possession. He lacked the floor time to generate any defensive or hustle stats to balance the ledger.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.4m -1.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Managed to squeeze out a slightly positive rating through quick defensive rotations during his brief cameo. His streak of high-efficiency scoring was paused simply due to a lack of minutes and touches.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 2.4m -1.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by converting his only look and securing the paint. This hyper-efficient micro-stint provided a sharp, positive spike to close out the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 2.4m -1.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.0

Operated strictly as a game manager during the final minutes, resulting in a perfectly neutral impact score. He prioritized chewing clock over hunting his own shot, breaking his recent pattern of secondary scoring.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 2.4m -1.1
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Devin Vassell 35.0m
18
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

A heavy reliance on isolation scoring yielded a strong box score metric, but his overall impact slipped into the red due to minimal off-ball engagement. While he broke out of a recent scoring slump, the lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption limited his true value.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 35.0m -15.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
25
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Utter dominance as a rim deterrent (+10.6 defensive impact) anchored his highly positive rating even as his perimeter jumper abandoned him. His willingness to battle for extra possessions masked the inefficiency of his shot selection from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 59.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +5.5
Defense +10.6
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 34.2m -15.1
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 39.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 7
S De'Aaron Fox 31.2m
7
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.3

An inability to find any rhythm from the perimeter severely damaged his offensive rating and dragged down his overall score. This performance marked a sharp departure from his recent efficient stretches, as forced shots early in the shot clock consistently derailed offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 31.2m -13.8
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 30.4m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

Active hands and relentless hustle plays kept his impact firmly in the green despite a noticeable dip in his recent scoring efficiency. He compensated for a clunky shooting night by attacking the glass and initiating secondary actions to keep the offense flowing.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 30.4m -13.4
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite solid defensive rotations and active hustle metrics (+2.1), his offensive disappearing act cratered his overall impact. Failing to generate his usual perimeter volume broke a recent pattern of reliable floor-spacing, rendering him a net negative on the wing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 23.6m -10.4
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Dylan Harper 22.1m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

High-level perimeter containment (+5.6 defensive impact) ensured he remained a strong positive despite a significant drop in his usual scoring volume. He maintained his streak of efficient shooting by strictly hunting high-percentage looks rather than forcing bad attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 22.1m -9.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

A complete lack of offensive aggression plummeted his impact score, snapping a streak of reliable secondary scoring. Without his usual downhill drives to collapse the defense, his minutes yielded almost zero tangible value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 17.2m -7.6
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball resulted in a highly negative overall rating. While his defensive rotations were passable, his passive offensive approach allowed defenders to completely ignore him in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 17.1m -7.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Luke Kornet 11.2m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Failing to secure position in the paint rendered him entirely ineffective during his brief rotation stint. This outing broke a reliable streak of efficient interior finishing, as he was completely neutralized by the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 11.2m -4.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Garbage time minutes yielded virtually no statistical footprint, resulting in a slightly negative baseline score. He operated strictly as a placeholder to close out the final frame.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.6m -1.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A brief appearance at the end of the bench rotation produced a negative rating due to empty possessions. He failed to register any meaningful hustle or defensive metrics to offset the lack of touches.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 3.6m -1.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Managed to generate a single bucket during his limited run, but defensive lapses kept his overall impact slightly below neutral. His brief stint was defined by a quick pace that failed to translate into sustained team success.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 3.6m -1.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Instant offensive execution during a micro-stint spiked his box score metrics into the green. Capitalizing perfectly on his few touches showcased a sharp contrast to his recent sluggish averages.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 3.6m -1.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Rushed a poor shot attempt during garbage time, which dragged his brief appearance into negative territory. His inability to impact the glass or defensive end left him without a redeeming metric.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 3.6m -1.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0