GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 35.7m
30
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+10.9

Masterful orchestration of the offense and relentless rim pressure resulted in a massive +10.9 impact score. He consistently broke down his primary defender, forcing help and creating high-quality looks for teammates. Surprisingly, his defensive metrics (+7.7) were outstanding, highlighted by his ability to draw charges and fight over screens.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.7
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 35.7m -19.4
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Josh Hart 30.7m
7
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.4

Despite strong rebounding and hustle metrics, his reluctance to look for his own shot resulted in a negative overall impact. He frequently passed up open looks, which bogged down the half-court offense and allowed the defense to pack the paint. His transition pushes were effective, but the half-court passivity was a glaring issue.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 30.7m -16.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Consistent interior scoring and strong defensive positioning (+4.5) drove a highly effective performance. He abandoned the three-point line after early misses and instead bullied his way to the rim against mismatched defenders. His ability to anchor the glass and alter shots at the rim provided a massive stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 30.7m -16.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S OG Anunoby 29.3m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

A highly efficient but low-volume offensive night yielded a modest positive impact. He picked his spots perfectly from beyond the arc, punishing late closeouts without forcing the issue. His defensive versatility kept the opponent's primary options in check, providing steady, mistake-free minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 29.3m -15.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 21.4m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

A frigid shooting night from the perimeter severely dragged down his net impact. He repeatedly settled for contested pull-up jumpers instead of attacking the teeth of the defense. While his point-of-attack defense (+4.2) remained elite, the empty offensive possessions were too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 21.4m -11.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Despite an incredible +7.6 hustle score, his erratic perimeter shooting kept his overall impact in the negative. He generated numerous extra possessions through deflections and offensive rebounds, but immediately gave that value back with forced threes. The high-energy effort was ultimately undone by poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +7.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 26.9m -14.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Efficient isolation scoring kept his impact barely above water, though his defensive indifference (+0.0) limited his ceiling. He successfully attacked closeouts and hit tough runners, providing a necessary spark plug for the second unit. However, his tendency to die on screens allowed opponents to immediately answer on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 21.8m -11.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.6

An absolute terror defensively (+13.2), he completely shut down the paint and altered the geometry of the opponent's offense. Even with minimal offensive touches, his vertical spacing and screen-setting created massive driving lanes for the guards. His rim deterrence alone was enough to swing the momentum heavily in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +13.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 17.0m -9.3
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

A surprising lack of disruptive energy (+0.2 hustle) rendered his minutes largely ineffective. He failed to generate his trademark backcourt pressure, allowing the opposing guards to initiate their offense comfortably. Without that defensive chaos, his low-usage offensive role wasn't enough to positively impact the game.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 15.5m -8.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Complete invisibility in the hustle categories (+0.0) and poor finishing cratered his brief stint on the floor. He looked hesitant to engage physically, failing to secure loose balls or fight through box-outs. The lack of energy combined with missed assignments led to a disastrous -7.5 net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 11.1m -6.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
GSW Golden State Warriors
25
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.9

High-volume scoring was largely offset by hidden costs, resulting in a modest +0.9 net impact despite the offensive output. He struggled to find his stroke from deep, settling for contested looks that bailed out the defense. His playmaking kept the offense afloat, but the overall efficiency didn't match the raw production.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 37.1m -20.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Quinten Post 35.4m
22
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

An unexpected scoring explosion was fueled by confident perimeter shooting and excellent floor spacing. The +5.8 defensive rating highlights how well he protected the paint and contested shots without fouling. By stretching the floor and anchoring the defense, he dictated the tempo whenever he was on the court.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 35.4m -19.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 46.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
S Gui Santos 31.8m
20
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.7

Continuing a hot streak of efficient finishing, his offensive rhythm was the primary driver of a solid +2.7 overall impact. While his scoring volume was excellent, his defensive metrics suggest he gave some of that value back on the other end. His ability to consistently find gaps in the defense kept the offense flowing during key stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 31.8m -17.2
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Will Richard 29.0m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Extreme passivity on offense cratered his overall impact (-4.8) despite solid defensive metrics. Taking only three shots in nearly 30 minutes allowed defenders to completely ignore him and sag into the paint. His strong closeouts and defensive rotations couldn't overcome the spacing issues his reluctance created.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 29.0m -15.8
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Malevy Leons 19.6m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Despite a brutal shooting night, his overall impact remained positive due to relentless off-ball activity. A massive +6.1 hustle score indicates he was constantly generating extra possessions and disrupting passing lanes. His defensive rotations salvaged a performance that would have otherwise been derailed by poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 19.6m -10.6
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.1

A dominant two-way performance was anchored by elite point-of-attack defense (+6.5) and highly efficient finishing. He capitalized on transition opportunities and cut decisively, punishing the defense for over-helping. This level of disruptive energy completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm while providing a massive scoring boost.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 27.7m -14.9
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Pat Spencer 22.7m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Inefficient shooting and a lack of defensive resistance dragged his net impact into the red. He settled for tough midrange looks instead of attacking the basket, allowing the defense to dictate terms. The lack of hustle plays (+0.8) meant he wasn't doing the dirty work needed to compensate for the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 22.7m -12.2
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LJ Cryer 13.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Poor shot selection and an inability to create separation resulted in a highly detrimental -6.0 impact score. He forced contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock, stalling offensive momentum. His defensive contributions were negligible, compounding the damage done by his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 13.6m -7.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

An absolute zero on offense, his inability to finish around the rim severely handicapped the second unit. He missed multiple point-blank looks and failed to establish deep post position against smaller defenders. While he showed some effort on the glass (+3.5 hustle), the offensive black hole he created was too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 12.6m -6.8
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear left him as a severe net negative (-5.0) in limited action. He struggled to get involved in the offensive flow, failing to generate the rim pressure that normally defines his game. Without his typical scoring gravity, his minutes were largely empty.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 10.4m -5.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1