GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 32.6m
10
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.3

Settled for heavily contested mid-range jumpers, bogging down the offensive flow and leading to empty trips. While his defensive effort remained steady, his inability to bend the defense or finish efficiently dragged down his overall value. The negative impact highlights a night where offensive stagnation overshadowed his typical two-way stability.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +37.6
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 32.6m -21.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
22
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.9

Dominated the glass and altered interior shots, anchoring the defense even when his perimeter stroke abandoned him. He leveraged his size to draw fouls and create gravity in the paint, opening up driving lanes for the guards. The positive impact underscores his ability to control the game through rebounding and physicality when his shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense +8.9
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 31.9m -21.5
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 29.2m
26
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.1

Punished defensive rotations with lethal spot-up shooting while completely locking down his primary assignment. His two-way dominance fueled a massive run, seamlessly toggling between elite spacing and suffocating point-of-attack defense. The high impact score reflects a masterclass in scalable, high-efficiency wing play.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 29.2m -19.6
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jose Alvarado 26.6m
16
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+10.4

Completely changed the complexion of the game with chaotic ball pressure and elite playmaking. His sudden scoring burst from deep punished drop coverage, while his signature backcourt harassment generated crucial live-ball turnovers. The massive positive swing illustrates his ability to inject pure adrenaline into the lineup.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.6
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 26.6m -17.9
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Hart 25.9m
33
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+23.9

An absolute wrecking ball in transition, turning defensive rebounds into immediate fast-break onslaughts. His unexpected perimeter explosion broke the opponent's defensive shell, forcing them to abandon their game plan. This staggering impact score was driven by relentless energy and flawless capitalization on defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 12/13 (92.3%)
3PT 5/5 (100.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.6%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +33.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.2
Raw total +41.4
Avg player in 25.9m -17.5
Impact +23.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyler Kolek 21.4m
3
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Orchestrated the offense with solid vision, but his reluctance to attack the paint allowed defenders to cheat into passing lanes. Defensive metrics show he held up well on the perimeter, yet the unit struggled to score efficiently during his shifts. The slight negative score points to a lack of scoring gravity that cramped the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 21.4m -14.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Provided a necessary scoring punch, but defensive lapses and poor shot selection in crunch time neutralized his contributions. He frequently stalled ball movement by over-dribbling into isolation traps. The near-neutral impact perfectly captures the duality of his microwave scoring and defensive concessions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 20.2m -13.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

Controlled the restricted area with elite offensive rebounding, constantly generating second-chance opportunities. His vertical spacing and rim protection forced opponents to entirely alter their pick-and-roll approach. A highly efficient shift defined by pure physical dominance in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 18.7m -12.6
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Bricked multiple open looks from the perimeter, severely damaging the team's half-court spacing. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards compounded the offensive woes, leading to a disastrous stint. The cratered impact score is a direct result of missing the exact shots he was brought in to make.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 15.7m -10.5
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, missing rotations and failing to secure loose balls. Forced ill-advised shots that led directly to opponent transition points. The negative impact reflects a brief but damaging stint where he was consistently a step slow.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 5.8m -3.8
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Executed his role quietly during a short stint, maintaining defensive structure without demanding the ball. His presence neither elevated nor hindered the unit, resulting in a perfectly neutral impact. A brief cameo defined by mistake-free, low-usage basketball.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 5.0m -3.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Struggled mightily with his perimeter stroke, continuing a cold streak that allowed defenders to sag off him completely. While he showed flashes of defensive competence, his offensive limitations stalled the unit's momentum. The negative score is directly tied to poor shooting gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 45.5%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense -2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 4.1m -2.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Injected immediate energy with aggressive closeouts and smart cuts during garbage time. He capitalized on a disorganized defense to secure a quick bucket and grab tough boards. A highly productive micro-shift built entirely on effort and spatial awareness.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 2.9m -2.0
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 31.9m
16
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-18.1

A disastrous overall impact score reflects significant defensive lapses and potentially costly turnovers that fueled transition attacks. While he maintained his recent shooting rhythm, his inability to contain his assignment created cascading rotation issues. The underlying metrics suggest his minutes were heavily exploited by the opposition in the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 31.9m -21.5
Impact -18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kobe Brown 30.7m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Severe defensive rotation errors and poor transition floor-balance tanked his overall impact despite a highly efficient shooting night. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, allowing the opposition to feast on easy layups. The stark contrast between his individual scoring and negative impact points directly to these off-ball defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 30.7m -20.6
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ivica Zubac 26.3m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Anchored the interior with exceptional defensive positioning, deterring drives and altering shots at the rim. Even with a sharp drop in scoring volume, his screen-setting and rim protection drove a highly positive impact. His physical presence dictated the half-court tempo, forcing opponents into low-percentage looks.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 26.3m -17.6
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Aaron Nesmith 24.3m
14
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Perimeter shot-making provided a strong offensive foundation, yet off-ball defensive struggles eroded his overall value. He repeatedly lost his man on closeouts, allowing easy counter-punches that negated his hot shooting. The sharp disconnect between his efficiency and negative impact points to severe defensive bleed on the wing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 24.3m -16.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S T.J. McConnell 19.6m
10
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.9

Playmaking and offensive organization kept the second unit humming, but defensive limitations at the point of attack mitigated those gains. Opposing guards consistently found penetration angles against him, neutralizing his efficient offensive orchestration. The slight negative impact highlights the trade-off between his passing vision and perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 19.6m -13.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

Defensive versatility and elite hustle metrics drove a massive positive impact despite offensive struggles. He blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions and generated extra possessions through sheer effort. His ability to impact the game without scoring showcased immense value as a defensive connector.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +10.0
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 21.8m -14.7
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
Jay Huff 21.7m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Struggled to find the mark from the perimeter, with missed trailing threes stalling offensive momentum. Despite solid rim protection and active hustle, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint. The resulting spacing issues severely hampered the second unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 21.7m -14.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.7

Erratic decision-making and forced shots derailed offensive possessions, sinking his overall impact. Although he brought commendable energy to the defensive end, his inability to manage the game's pace led to empty trips. The negative score stems directly from offensive disjointedness when he initiated the offense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 18.4m -12.3
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Obi Toppin 18.1m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Capitalized on transition opportunities and vertical spacing to generate highly efficient offense. However, a lack of defensive resistance and rebounding presence prevented his impact from matching his scoring output. His minutes were defined by explosive finishes that were partially offset by giving up easy paint touches on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 18.1m -12.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 17.1m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Flawless shot selection and relentless off-ball movement created high-value opportunities without demanding usage. His defensive activity disrupted passing lanes and generated crucial stops during a pivotal second-half stretch. Maximized his limited minutes by executing his 3-and-D role to perfection.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 17.1m -11.6
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 10.0m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Failed to find an offensive rhythm, with rushed attempts short-circuiting possessions during his brief stint. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, allowing his matchup to dictate the tempo. The negative impact reflects a disjointed shift where he couldn't establish a foothold on either end.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -64.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 10.0m -6.8
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1