GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 30.9m
19
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

High-volume scoring masked a deeply inefficient outing where forced isolation jumpers frequently bailed out the opposing defense. His overall impact stayed above water entirely due to his weakside shot-blocking and disciplined closeouts. If he had reined in his shot selection during the third-quarter cold streak, his net rating would have mirrored his impressive defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 30.9m -16.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Josh Giddey 27.1m
9
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.5

An absolute refusal by the defense to guard him on the perimeter resulted in a barrage of bricked three-pointers that functioned as live-ball turnovers. Opponents aggressively sagged off him to clog the driving lanes, completely neutralizing his elite playmaking vision. While he fought hard on the glass to salvage some value, his broken jumper actively sabotaged the team's offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.5%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -49.2
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 27.1m -14.7
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Leonard Miller 26.5m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Elite finishing around the basket was completely undone by a string of careless offensive fouls and illegal screens that killed momentum. He consistently lost track of his man in transition, giving up easy layups before the defense could get set. The raw scoring efficiency looks great on paper, but his mental lapses on the margins kept his true impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 26.5m -14.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tre Jones 23.7m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.4

A sharp regression in his floater game and inability to finish through contact severely limited his offensive footprint. He tried to compensate by applying relentless full-court pressure, generating several deflections that stalled the opponent's initiation. However, his inability to bend the defense on drives resulted in stagnant half-court possessions that ultimately hurt the team.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 23.7m -12.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Smith 17.3m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite knocking down open perimeter looks at a high clip, his struggles to secure defensive rebounds against more physical bigs gave opponents crucial second-chance opportunities. He was frequently out-positioned in the paint, neutralizing the value of his floor-spacing. A lack of rim protection in drop coverage ultimately dragged his otherwise efficient offensive shift into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 17.3m -9.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Elite wing defense and physical post-up denials were overshadowed by an offensive performance marred by hesitation and bricked perimeter looks. He consistently passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities only to force contested mid-range pull-ups late in the clock. His defensive versatility remains highly valuable, but his offensive timidity actively shrinks the floor for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 25.8m -14.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Sizzling shot creation and a massive scoring surge were entirely offset by his inability to stay in front of his man at the point of attack. He was relentlessly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, dying on screens and forcing teammates into impossible rotation situations. The offensive fireworks were spectacular, but he gave every single point back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 24.6m -13.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.7

A highly disciplined approach to attacking closeouts allowed him to generate consistent rim pressure without forcing bad shots. He leveraged his driving gravity beautifully, finding open shooters with sharp kick-out passes when the defense collapsed. Even on a quieter scoring night, his decisive north-south attacks dictated the tempo and kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.5
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 17.8m -9.7
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Fumbled catches in traffic and a tendency to bring the ball down on offensive rebounds completely erased his interior advantage. He provided some decent rim deterrence when stationed in the paint, but struggled mightily when pulled out to the perimeter on switches. His inability to convert high-percentage dump-offs severely stunted the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -56.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 16.5m -9.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Scoring output plummeted, but he engineered a highly positive shift through bruising screens and impeccable positional defense. He routinely blew up opponent pick-and-rolls by showing hard and recovering with surprising agility for his size. His willingness to do the dirty work—boxing out larger bigs and diving for loose balls—anchored the lineup's success.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -44.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 14.0m -7.6
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Maximized his brief rotation minutes by executing defensive coverages flawlessly and refusing to bite on pump fakes. He stayed perfectly vertical around the basket, altering several attempts without committing cheap fouls. A low-usage, high-discipline performance that stabilized the frontcourt when the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 8.2m -4.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite injecting some quick-burst energy and hitting a timely floater, his lack of size made him an easy target for defensive mismatches. Opponents relentlessly posted him up or shot right over his contests, bleeding points on that end of the floor. His offensive spark simply couldn't outpace the structural defensive compromises his presence required.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 7.7m -4.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 28.8m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Despite elite shot-making efficiency that inflated his baseline metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to costly live-ball turnovers and poor transition defense. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts during the second half, completely negating the value of his isolation scoring.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +58.7
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 28.8m -15.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S RJ Barrett 27.0m
23
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Aggressive downhill drives defined his night, consistently collapsing the defense and generating high-value offensive sequences. While his perimeter shot selection was occasionally rushed, his physical point-of-attack defense against opposing wings kept his overall value firmly in the green. He thrived in early offense, punishing retreating defenders before the half-court set could establish.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 27.0m -14.6
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.7

Shooting struggles were completely overshadowed by an absolute masterclass in point-of-attack defense and relentless screen navigation. He generated immense value by fighting over picks to blow up dribble hand-offs, disrupting the opponent's primary offensive actions. His crisp hit-ahead passes in transition further boosted his overall footprint despite the clunky finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 25.7m -14.0
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Scottie Barnes 25.0m
18
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

A massive two-way footprint was driven by relentless activity in the passing lanes and high-level weakside rim protection. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, he bullied smaller defenders in the mid-post to generate high-percentage looks. His ability to turn defensive deflections directly into fast-break momentum anchored the team's success.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 25.0m -13.6
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jakob Poeltl 21.0m
17
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.4

Dominant interior positioning fueled a massive positive impact, as he consistently sealed off his primary defender to create easy finishing angles. He anchored the drop coverage masterfully, forcing opponents into contested floaters rather than conceding attempts at the rim. This marked another highly efficient outing where his screen-setting and roll gravity warped the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +67.2
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 21.0m -11.4
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Operating as a high-post hub, his quick decision-making and precise interior passing picked apart the opposing zone defense. He maintained excellent spacing by taking only high-quality looks within the flow of the offense. Active hands in the passing lanes provided a solid defensive floor to complement his offensive versatility.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 22.2m -12.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Poor shot selection and a tendency to force contested jumpers early in the clock cratered his overall effectiveness. He was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points on the defensive end due to slow lateral slides. The combination of empty offensive possessions and defensive liability resulted in a deeply negative shift.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 22.1m -12.1
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.6

Capitalizing on a massive surge in offensive confidence, his impact skyrocketed thanks to impeccable spacing and decisive catch-and-shoot execution. He punished late closeouts effectively, turning what could have been contested looks into clean drives to the basket. A disciplined approach to staying attached to shooters on the perimeter rounded out a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 90.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +47.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 21.5m -11.6
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jamal Shead 18.3m
0
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

Complete offensive passivity severely dragged down his overall rating, as opposing defenses entirely ignored him off the ball to crowd the paint. Refusing to look at the rim allowed his primary defender to play free safety, clogging driving lanes for teammates. Even a handful of solid rotational passes couldn't salvage the structural damage caused by his lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +63.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 18.3m -9.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 10.2m
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Despite a slight uptick from his recent shooting woes, his inability to connect on open perimeter looks allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens defensively, frequently arriving late to closeouts and surrendering clean looks. The lack of secondary playmaking meant his missed jumpers were essentially dead possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 10.2m -5.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

A complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor, allowing his matchup to freely roam and double-team. He did manage to salvage some value by fighting hard for contested rebounds in traffic. Ultimately, his reluctance to even look at the basket stalled the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -43.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 6.7m -3.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Veteran savvy and active communication couldn't mask the physical limitations that led to him being repeatedly blown by on the perimeter. While he generated a few extra possessions through sheer hustle and loose-ball recoveries, his offensive limitations stalled half-court execution. Opponents actively hunted him in isolation during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -43.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense -1.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 6.7m -3.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Made the most of a brief cameo by executing his rim-running duties with precision and discipline. He altered a pair of shots at the rim through verticality, deterring drives without committing fouls. Keeping the ball moving offensively ensured his short shift was a net positive for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -50.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0