GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 29.6m
14
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.5

Getting caught ball-watching on back-door cuts surrendered easy layups that undermined a solid shooting night. The offense flowed well when he touched it, but those defensive lapses proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +43.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 29.6m -18.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 29.3m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-17.0

An uncharacteristic lack of aggression on offense allowed his primary defender to roam freely as a free safety. Coupled with a few miscommunications on baseline switches, his presence coincided with massive opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 29.3m -17.9
Impact -17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Brunson 28.4m
23
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.1

Methodical probing in the pick-and-roll consistently generated high-quality looks, even when his own shot wasn't falling perfectly. Drawing crucial offensive fouls in the fourth quarter provided a massive hidden boost to his net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 28.4m -17.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Hart 27.5m
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.7

Relentless energy in transition and timely closeouts set the tone for the second unit. Hitting every perimeter look he took forced defenders to respect his shot, opening up devastating cutting lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.4
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 27.5m -16.9
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
26
pts
16
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.8

Absolute domination of the defensive glass erased any second-chance opportunities for the opponent. His decisive post moves and quick decision-making against double teams anchored a flawless offensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +27.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +35.6
Avg player in 25.6m -15.8
Impact +19.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

Chaotic but effective ball pressure disrupted the opposing bench's rhythm. He stayed within the flow of the offense rather than forcing isolation looks, resulting in a highly efficient, positive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +6.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 22.8m -14.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Scorching the nets from deep wasn't enough to overcome a tendency to get lost on defensive rotations. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points that erased his offensive explosion.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 19.8m -12.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.1

Vertical spacing and elite rim protection completely altered the geometry of the game. Opposing guards outright refused to challenge him in the paint during a dominant second-quarter stint.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.1
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 16.8m -10.4
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.8

Pesky point-of-attack defense frustrated the opposing ball-handlers and burned valuable seconds off the shot clock. A pair of timely corner triples punished the defense for sagging off him in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 16.2m -9.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Bully-ball drives into the teeth of the defense generated high-percentage finishes during a brief but impactful stint. His physical screen-setting freed up shooters and catalyzed a quick scoring run.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 8.2m -5.0
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.0

A flawless shooting exhibition punished defensive drop coverages in rapid succession. Capitalizing on every sliver of daylight, he single-handedly swung the momentum during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 137.5%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 5.4m -3.4
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Struggled to anchor the paint during a brief cameo, allowing guards to turn the corner too easily. His lack of offensive involvement made him a non-factor on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +69.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Rushing perimeter looks early in the shot clock led to empty possessions and opponent transition bursts. Looked out of sync with the offensive system during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +69.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Failed to contain dribble penetration, forcing the defense into scramble mode on multiple trips. A forced jumper did little to help an already disjointed stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +69.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 3.5m -2.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 34.3m
14
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.9

Live-ball turnovers and poor transition defense likely fueled a massive negative swing despite solid playmaking. His inability to navigate screens at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo all night.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 34.3m -21.0
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jamir Watkins 30.7m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

Bricklaying from beyond the arc completely cratered his offensive gravity and fueled opponent fast breaks. While his defensive rotations were crisp, the constant transition opportunities created by his long misses resulted in a severely negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.3
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 30.7m -18.8
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Will Riley 29.4m
11
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.5

Settling for early-clock, contested triples disrupted the offensive flow and handed the opponent easy run-outs. Even with active hustle on the glass, that poor shot selection severely punished the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 29.4m -18.0
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 29.1m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

A pattern of forcing contested floaters in the second half torpedoed his offensive value. Despite elite defensive metrics and active hands in the passing lanes, those empty possessions dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +9.5
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 29.1m -17.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt kept the offense humming, as his pick-and-pop gravity created wide-open driving lanes. However, sluggish lateral movement on switches bled points on the other end, nearly washing out his shooting contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 15.1m -9.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.9

Over-dribbling in the half-court stalled out multiple possessions, neutralizing the value of his facilitation. A handful of costly defensive gambles off the ball ultimately pushed his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 29.1m -17.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 29.1m
25
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Scoring volume masked a highly detrimental defensive performance where he repeatedly died on screens. The barrage of perimeter jumpers looked pretty, but his lack of resistance at the point of attack gave those points right back.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 29.1m -17.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Anthony Gill 26.4m
18
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Surgical finishing around the basket defined a highly efficient offensive showing. High-motor closeouts and timely weak-side rotations amplified his impact, cementing his role as a stabilizing two-way presence.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 26.4m -16.2
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Leaky Black 16.7m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Total offensive passivity allowed defenders to completely ignore him and pack the paint. While his length disrupted passing lanes, playing four-on-five on the other end crippled the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 16.7m -10.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1