GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 39.6m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Forcing contested jumpers against set defenses cratered his overall impact, resulting in a damaging -7.5 rating. Though he provided adequate perimeter resistance (+2.7 Def), the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. Poor shot selection ultimately defined this highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 39.6m -18.4
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Brunson 38.6m
16
pts
3
reb
15
ast
Impact
+11.0

Overcame a miserable shooting night by transforming into an elite floor general and hustle machine (+15.5). His constant dribble penetration collapsed the defense, allowing him to orchestrate open looks for teammates while fighting relentlessly for loose balls. This performance proved that high-IQ playmaking and sheer effort can completely override a broken jumper.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +15.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 38.6m -17.9
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S OG Anunoby 37.7m
16
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Brick-heavy perimeter shooting threatened to sink his value, but a phenomenal defensive effort (+9.1 Def) salvaged his overall rating. He locked down the point of attack and generated extra possessions through sheer willpower (+8.9 Hustle). The two-way disparity was glaring, yet his defensive motor ultimately outweighed the clanked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense +9.1
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 37.7m -17.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
17
pts
17
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.5

Total domination of the painted area drove an astronomical +27.4 box score impact. By operating with ruthless efficiency around the basket and refusing to settle for bad looks, he completely dictated the terms of engagement. This interior clinic anchored the team and resulted in a massive overall positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.1%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +27.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 32.5m -15.0
Impact +15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Hart 24.9m
10
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Errant shooting from deep and likely spacing issues clogged the offense, resulting in a negative overall impact despite solid defensive metrics. While he secured the glass effectively, his inability to punish closeouts allowed defenders to cheat off him. The lack of offensive flow ultimately punished his bottom-line rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 24.9m -11.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Timely off-ball movement and decisive shot-making provided a crucial offensive spark, reflected in a strong +11.1 box score metric. He compounded this scoring punch with surprising grit on 50/50 balls (+6.2 Hustle) to keep possessions alive. Capitalizing on defensive lapses made him a highly effective rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 31.0m -14.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Punished defensive rotations with highly efficient catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter. This floor-spacing gravity, combined with disciplined closeouts on the other end (+2.8 Def), yielded a steady positive impact. He played perfectly within his role, taking exactly what the defense conceded.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 13.3m -6.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Getting hunted on defensive switches (-1.5 Def) and failing to generate any disruptive hustle plays completely neutralized his usual value. Compounding the issue, his errant perimeter shooting stalled out half-court sets and fueled opponent transition opportunities. A distinct lack of energy resulted in a punishing -8.4 net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 11.7m -5.4
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Complete invisibility on the offensive end allowed the opposing frontcourt to roam freely, severely damaging his overall impact (-4.5). While he showed flashes of activity in rim protection (+1.3 Def), playing as a non-threat with the ball crippled the team's spacing. The lack of interior pressure was too glaring to ignore.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +43.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 9.0m -4.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Managed to squeeze out a marginal positive impact (+0.5) during a fleeting appearance thanks to immediate energy on the margins (+1.2 Hustle). The sample size was too small for any meaningful offensive or defensive rhythm to materialize.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +125.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 1.6m -0.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
26
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.5

Surgical penetration and elite finishing drove a massive positive rating, constantly forcing defensive rotations. He supplemented his primary scoring role with active hands in passing lanes (+3.0 Def) and timely hustle plays. The sheer gravity of his drives dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 35.5m -16.5
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 32.7m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.6

Despite a significant scoring surge above his recent average, his overall impact plummeted due to severe defensive lapses (-2.4 Def). Poor perimeter containment and likely foul trouble negated the value of his outside shooting. The offensive volume simply masked how much he gave back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.4
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 32.7m -15.2
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 32.1m
28
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Elite shot selection and floor-stretching completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme, driving a massive +17.7 box score impact. He paired this offensive explosion with high-level rim protection (+3.5 Def) to anchor the interior. This two-way dominance defined the matchup and fueled his outstanding overall rating.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 32.1m -14.9
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 29.4m
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.6

Relentless point-of-attack pressure defined this outing, yielding an astronomical +9.9 defensive rating. Even with his perimeter jumper failing to connect, his constant ball-denial and elite hustle (+6.2) disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. He proved that pure defensive intensity can salvage a rough shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +9.9
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 29.4m -13.6
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Total offensive passivity erased the value of his otherwise excellent defensive positioning (+4.2 Def). By refusing to look at the rim, he allowed the opposing frontcourt to completely ignore him and crowd the paint. His active hands and hustle plays simply couldn't overcome playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.7%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 16.6m -7.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 23.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Missing every attempt from beyond the arc destroyed his floor-spacing value and allowed the defense to pack the paint. This lack of offensive gravity, combined with neutral defensive resistance, resulted in a disastrous -10.0 net impact. Even solid hustle metrics couldn't salvage a performance defined by bricked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 23.9m -11.1
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Despite efficient situational scoring, hidden mistakes like mistimed rotations and likely turnovers dragged his overall impact into the negative. He struggled to string together consecutive stops, mitigating the value of his selective offensive approach. The underlying metrics suggest he gave up more in transition than he created in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 18.4m -8.5
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Solid positional defense (+2.9 Def) kept him afloat, but inefficient offensive execution dragged his overall impact slightly below neutral. Settling for heavily contested looks from the outside limited his playmaking value. He provided decent energy but lacked the offensive rhythm needed to swing the game.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 18.2m -8.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 15.1m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Cold perimeter shooting severely hampered his overall effectiveness, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. While he showed decent effort on rotations (+2.5 Def), the inability to punish closeouts dragged his net impact firmly into the red. His offensive struggles ultimately outweighed his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -57.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 15.1m -6.9
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Alex Caruso 11.8m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.5

A masterclass in off-ball impact generated a massive +8.5 overall rating in under 12 minutes of action. Elite screen navigation (+5.4 Def) and relentless loose-ball recoveries (+6.6 Hustle) completely derailed the opponent's second unit. He didn't need to shoot to completely flip the momentum of the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 11.8m -5.5
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.6

Completely changed the game's energy during a brief stint, driven almost entirely by elite hustle (+6.5). Crashing the glass and keeping possessions alive masked his lack of offensive volume. This hyper-efficient burst of activity proved exactly why high-motor players swing tight margins.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +79.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +6.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 6.2m -2.9
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0