GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 33.0m
14
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+1.0

Elite connective passing and strong positional rebounding kept his head above water despite a sluggish shooting night. He controlled the tempo beautifully in the half-court, though a few forced floaters in the lane prevented a higher impact score.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +9.1
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 33.0m -17.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Isaac Okoro 31.8m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-17.8

An absolute black hole on the offensive end dragged his overall impact into the abyss. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, packing the paint and turning his missed spot-up attempts into easy transition run-outs.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 31.8m -16.8
Impact -17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.6

Bully-ball tactics in the post combined with timely floor-spacing created massive matchup problems for the defense. His willingness to let it fly from deep forced opposing bigs out of their comfort zone, opening up the entire offense.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 29.4m -15.7
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Jones 26.4m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack completely erased a highly efficient offensive outing. Opposing guards consistently blew by him on the perimeter, forcing the defense into rotation and bleeding high-value looks at the rim.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense -2.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 26.4m -14.0
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 20.4m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Inefficient finishing in traffic severely muted what could have been a strong performance. While he found some success spacing the floor, failing to convert on drives against secondary rim protectors kept his net rating flat.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 20.4m -10.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Tunnel vision on drives and poor defensive containment resulted in a net-negative shift. Even when he managed to score, the possessions often featured stagnant ball movement that allowed the opposing defense to easily reset.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense -2.1
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 28.0m -15.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

Errant perimeter shooting and a failure to break down the primary defender stalled the offense during his minutes. Despite showing great energy on loose balls, his inability to bend the defense off the dribble severely limited his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 23.8m -12.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Excellent vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection anchored a solid positive rating. He feasted on dump-off passes out of the pick-and-roll, punishing defensive over-rotations with high-percentage finishes.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 23.3m -12.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A lack of physical engagement and minimal off-ball movement tanked his overall effectiveness. He frequently floated on the perimeter rather than attacking the offensive glass, wasting his size advantage against smaller frontcourt matchups.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 21.1m -11.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely factored into the game during a very brief rotation stint. Rushed a contested look in his limited offensive touches, preventing him from establishing any sort of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +114.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Aaron Wiggins 33.9m
18
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.6

Relentless rim pressure and off-ball cutting drove a massive positive rating, completely offsetting a cold night from beyond the arc. He consistently beat closeouts to finish inside, extending a hot streak of highly efficient interior scoring.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +8.4
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 33.9m -17.9
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Isaiah Joe 29.7m
19
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A heavy volume of bricked perimeter shots severely penalized his overall score despite a notable scoring surge. The offense stagnated during stretches where he repeatedly forced heavily contested catch-and-shoot looks early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 29.7m -15.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 28.9m
17
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

Exceptional point-of-attack defense and timely playmaking fueled a highly productive shift. He capitalized on broken defensive rotations to generate high-quality looks, proving to be a stabilizing two-way force whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 28.9m -15.4
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 27.6m
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Despite elite hustle metrics keeping his defensive value afloat, an inability to space the floor cratered his overall impact. Missing all of his perimeter looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 27.6m -14.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 25.9m
12
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Settling for contested jumpers rather than dictating terms in the paint suppressed his overall effectiveness. While his rim protection remained a deterrent, the empty offensive possessions and uncharacteristic inefficiency tilted his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 25.9m -13.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
17
pts
16
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.6

Dominating the physical battles in the paint and stretching the floor effectively resulted in a team-high impact score. His ability to drag opposing bigs to the perimeter opened up vital cutting lanes, completely altering the geometry of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +10.2
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 32.9m -17.6
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 25.2m
20
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Aggressive shot-hunting and confident perimeter execution shattered his recent scoring averages to drive a strong positive rating. He consistently punished drop coverage by stepping into rhythm jumpers off high ball screens.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 25.2m -13.4
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Alex Caruso 19.3m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Defensive disruption and relentless rotational help salvaged a positive rating on a night where his jumper was completely broken. Even while clanking open corner looks, his ability to blow up dribble hand-offs kept the opposition out of sync.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.3
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 19.3m -10.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Complete offensive passivity and an inability to generate any rim pressure resulted in a severely negative rating. The unit bled momentum during his minutes because his defender was able to freely roam and double-team primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 14.9m -7.9
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely saw the floor during a brief garbage-time cameo. A lack of meaningful touches or defensive actions left his impact score hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -225.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0