GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 33.9m
16
pts
15
reb
13
ast
Impact
+9.4

Masterful orchestration of the offense was the engine behind his stellar net rating. A high volume of risky skip passes resulted in some costly turnovers, but his elite rebounding sparked numerous lethal transition opportunities. Diagnosing and dismantling the opponent's zone defense in the first half showcased his supreme court vision.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +10.8
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 33.9m -20.5
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 31.7m
29
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.7

An absolute offensive masterclass was driven by lethal shot-making and decisive off-ball movement. While a handful of careless passing errors slightly dented his total, his ability to consistently beat primary defenders in isolation overwhelmed the opposition. His relentless attack against drop coverage in the third quarter completely broke the game open.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +9.1
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 31.7m -19.2
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Leonard Miller 28.3m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

High-efficiency finishing at the rim anchored a solidly positive outing. The raw impact was dragged down somewhat by defensive three-second violations and poor screen navigation. However, his physical mismatches in the post consistently generated high-quality looks for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +38.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.2
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 28.3m -17.1
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Tre Jones 27.9m
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.4

Exceptional defensive pressure and calculated playmaking resulted in a highly effective shift. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll sets at the point of attack, though a few offensive fouls on drives slightly suppressed his ceiling. His ability to dictate the tempo during a chaotic second quarter was the defining element of his performance.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 27.9m -16.9
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Smith 26.8m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Perimeter shooting woes severely limited the value of his otherwise solid interior presence. He gave back significant value through forced, contested jumpers early in the shot clock that sparked opponent fast breaks. Controlling the weak-side glass against smaller lineups was the only thing keeping his rating out of the red.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +51.9
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 26.8m -16.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

Inefficient volume shooting and poor shot selection tanked his overall effectiveness. He bled value by forcing contested mid-range pull-ups rather than keeping the ball moving within the system. Getting trapped repeatedly on the sideline during the fourth quarter highlighted his struggles against physical pressure.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 26.7m -16.0
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

A bounce-back shooting night was entirely undermined by invisible interior defense and poor rebounding positioning. His rating sank as he consistently lost his man on baseline cuts and committed silly reach-in fouls. Failing to secure crucial defensive rebounds during crunch time allowed back-breaking second-chance points.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 19.9m -11.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Bully-ball tactics in the paint generated highly efficient offense and a positive overall footprint. He did surrender some value by biting on pump fakes, leading to easy trips to the foul line for his matchups. His physical sealing in the low post created a reliable safety valve when half-court sets bogged down.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 97.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 18.0m -10.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Subpar rim protection and slow defensive rotations dragged his impact into the negative. He struggled mightily to contain dribble penetration, frequently fouling out of position when guards attacked the paint. A total inability to defend the pick-and-roll lob threat made him a target during his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 12.6m -7.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Defensive limitations at the point of attack severely hampered his overall rating. Opposing guards easily shot over his contests, while his tentative decision-making on offense led to stalled possessions. Being relentlessly hunted in isolation matchups during the second quarter defined his difficult stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 11.8m -7.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

A brief, ineffective cameo was marred by immediate defensive miscommunications. He looked lost in the team's switching scheme, giving up a pair of uncontested layups in rapid succession. His inability to quickly adapt to the game's pace rendered his minutes a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 2.5m -1.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Rayan Rupert 27.2m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.6

Offensive ineptitude completely overshadowed his defensive metrics. His impact score cratered due to forced, low-quality perimeter jumpers and multiple offensive fouls that killed momentum. A total inability to punish drop coverage made him a massive liability on that end.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -49.2
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 27.2m -16.4
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.7

Playmaking volume couldn't salvage a deeply negative overall footprint. He bled value through late-clock shot-clock violations and lazy transition defense that allowed easy run-outs. Getting repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll switches during the third quarter tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -63.6
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 26.3m -15.8
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

The scoring efficiency was a mirage masking severe rotational lapses. A heavy accumulation of defensive fouls and unforced passing errors dragged his net impact into negative territory. Getting consistently back-cut during the second quarter highlighted his off-ball awareness issues.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 24.2m -14.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 23.8m
17
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.0

High-volume mistakes erased his scoring utility. Despite solid offensive creation, his overall impact plunged into the red due to a barrage of live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent transition runs. Poor decision-making against aggressive perimeter traps defined his stint.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 23.8m -14.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 22.7m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

An unexpected scoring surge kept his baseline afloat, but sloppy ball security severely capped his overall value. Careless entry passes led to costly empty possessions that gave back much of what he generated. His aggressive downhill drives were effective, yet he struggled to read help defense when the lane collapsed.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 22.7m -13.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.1

Strong point-of-attack defense was entirely negated by a disastrous offensive showing. His rating plummeted from a combination of bricked open looks and careless moving screens that stalled half-court sets. A glaring reluctance to attack closeouts allowed the defense to completely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 26.1m -15.7
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.5

Frenetic energy yielded solid hustle numbers but resulted in out-of-control offensive sequences. His net rating suffered heavily from wild drives into traffic that generated live-ball turnovers. Over-helping on the perimeter left his primary assignment wide open for back-breaking corner triples.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 22.8m -13.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyler Burton 21.4m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Elite hustle metrics barely kept his head above water amidst severe offensive struggles. Clunky mechanics led to poor finishing at the rim, while a high foul rate in the paint erased his defensive rebounding value. His relentless effort on 50/50 balls during the fourth quarter prevented his impact from slipping into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 21.4m -12.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.6

A dominant two-way performance was fueled by impeccable timing on weak-side rotations. He maximized his touches by strictly taking high-value shots within the flow of the offense, punishing late closeouts effectively. Anchoring the defense during a crucial second-half run cemented his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 21.3m -12.9
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 16.1m
12
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.5

Excellent shot selection and crisp offensive execution drove a highly positive stint. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely cuts, though a few reach-in fouls slightly dampened his overall score. His ability to dissect zone coverages from the high post was the catalyst for his team's best offensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 16.1m -9.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Taj Gibson 8.1m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Veteran positioning allowed him to survive a brief stint with a neutral impact. He provided steady rim deterrence, but sluggish footwork on the perimeter led to a couple of damaging blow-by fouls. His textbook box-outs against more athletic bigs stabilized the defensive glass during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 8.1m -4.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0