GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 38.7m
15
pts
7
reb
13
ast
Impact
-2.5

Elite playmaking vision was entirely undermined by a disastrous finishing night inside the arc. A barrage of missed floaters and contested layups effectively handed the opponent free transition opportunities. While his defensive rebounding and passing were stellar, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions kept his net impact in the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 38.7m -22.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 34.8m
23
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

A blistering shooting display from deep masked underlying issues that dragged his overall impact into the red. While his perimeter marksmanship provided crucial spacing, defensive lapses and transition bleed negated the scoring boost. The disparity between his strong baseline production and negative net rating suggests his minutes were plagued by costly rotational mistakes.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 34.8m -20.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Jones 28.1m
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.6

Continued a streak of highly efficient shooting by picking his spots perfectly in the mid-range and at the rim. His steady hand as a floor general kept the offense humming, generating high-quality looks while limiting costly live-ball turnovers. The combination of smart shot selection and solid point-of-attack defense resulted in a clean, positive shift.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 28.1m -16.4
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nick Richards 26.4m
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite an uptick in scoring volume, his overall effectiveness was hampered by inefficient finishing around the basket. Missed bunnies and a lack of vertical spacing allowed the opposing defense to comfortably pack the paint. His solid rebounding numbers couldn't quite compensate for the offensive possessions that stalled out in his hands.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 26.4m -15.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 76.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Smith 25.8m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Bounced back from a recent scoreless outing with a highly efficient offensive performance that stretched the opposing frontcourt. His ability to knock down trail threes forced opposing bigs out of the paint, fundamentally altering the half-court geometry. Combined with sturdy interior defense, his two-way execution provided a steadying presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +6.3
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 25.8m -15.0
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
25
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.5

Relentless downhill pressure and timely perimeter shot-making broke the opposing defense's back during critical stretches. Even when his interior finishing wavered, his aggression forced defensive rotations and opened up the floor for trailing shooters. Coupling this offensive spark with surprisingly disruptive defensive metrics cemented a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.1
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 25.9m -15.0
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Capitalized on physical mismatches by converting efficiently in the painted area and crashing the offensive glass. His decisive cuts and soft touch around the rim punished a sluggish opposing frontline. By playing strictly within his role and avoiding forced perimeter shots, he delivered a highly effective, low-mistake shift.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 23.3m -13.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.3

Extreme offensive passivity severely damaged the team's half-court flow, as he showed a complete reluctance to shoot. His hesitation to attack closeouts allowed defenders to completely ignore him and overload the strong side. This lack of gravity, combined with a continuation of recent offensive struggles, resulted in a heavily negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 18.8m -10.9
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Provided a quick scoring punch with efficient perimeter execution, but struggled to anchor the team's overall structure. Defensive growing pains and likely off-ball miscommunications allowed the opponent to match his offensive output on the other end. His shift was a classic case of rookie flash overshadowed by structural defensive leakage.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 18.3m -10.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 39.7m
40
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.1

Elite shot-making fueled a massive offensive surge, as he consistently punished defenders with high-efficiency perimeter execution. Converting a heavy diet of contested jumpers created immense gravity, opening up the floor for the rest of the rotation. His steady defensive presence ensured that his scoring outbursts translated directly to a strong positive margin.

Shooting
FG 15/23 (65.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 75.4%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 39.7m -23.0
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Amen Thompson 39.3m
23
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

High-percentage finishing around the rim drove strong baseline production, but the overall impact was muted by off-ball factors. His relentless attacking style generated efficient offense, continuing a trend of excellent interior touch. However, a lack of perimeter spacing and neutral defensive metrics kept his net contribution surprisingly modest despite the scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 39.3m -23.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 37.4m
33
pts
13
reb
10
ast
Impact
+30.1

Absolute dominance in the paint anchored this performance, highlighted by near-perfect interior finishing that overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. His exceptional defensive metrics and high-level hustle indicate he was just as disruptive without the ball, blowing up pick-and-roll coverages. Serving as the primary offensive hub, his dual-threat playmaking dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 16/19 (84.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +33.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +13.6
Raw total +51.9
Avg player in 37.4m -21.8
Impact +30.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 40.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Reed Sheppard 36.3m
13
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-14.4

A brutal night from beyond the arc torpedoed his overall effectiveness, as a barrage of missed threes wasted valuable offensive possessions. This poor shot selection allowed the defense to consistently leak out in transition and generate easy points. While his defensive effort remained a bright spot, it couldn't offset the massive offensive crater created by his shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 3/14 (21.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.3
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 36.3m -21.1
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.8

His impact plummeted due to severe perimeter shooting struggles that killed offensive momentum. The inability to stretch the floor clogged driving lanes for teammates, compounding the half-court stagnation. Despite decent defensive positioning, the sheer volume of wasted possessions from beyond the arc dragged his overall value into the abyss.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.7%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 34.2m -20.0
Impact -18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Despite playing solid point-of-attack defense, his overall impact slipped due to passive offensive involvement. He struggled to initiate meaningful actions, settling into the background rather than pressuring the rim or creating advantages. The lack of offensive assertiveness ultimately outweighed his steady defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +43.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 21.1m -12.2
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Tari Eason 14.3m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Offensive rhythm completely eluded him during his brief stint, resulting in a stark drop-off from his recent scoring efficiency. He managed to stay afloat through sheer effort, utilizing active hands and strong defensive rotations to mitigate the damage of his missed shots. Ultimately, his high-energy play style stabilized his minutes even when the jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 31.6%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 14.3m -8.3
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Completely vanished on the offensive end, continuing a recent trend of perimeter invisibility. His value was entirely dependent on defensive positioning, but the lack of floor spacing allowed his matchup to freely roam and double-team primary creators. The inability to punish closeouts made him a net negative during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 7.6m -4.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Made the most of a highly limited rotation spot by converting his only look at the basket and avoiding costly mistakes. His brief appearance was defined by mistake-free basketball, steering clear of the fouls and turnovers that often plague short stints. He provided a quick burst of functional depth without disrupting the team's overall flow.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -88.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 4.3m -2.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

A brief, cardio-heavy stint yielded zero tangible production and actively hurt the team's spacing. Without attempting a shot, his defender was able to sag off and clog the paint to stifle driving lanes. The lack of offensive threat turned his minutes into a slight negative despite avoiding major defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 3.3m -1.9
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Rushed through a very short appearance, forcing a bad perimeter look and failing to impact the glass. His trademark energy was neutralized by the brevity of his minutes, preventing him from stringing together any momentum-shifting hustle plays. The quick hook left him with a minor negative dent in the impact ledger.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0