GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 28.9m
17
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.4

Tremendous length and timing as a weak-side helper generated elite defensive metrics and completely deterred rim attempts. Conversely, his offensive impact was muted by a tendency to force contested mid-range pull-ups rather than moving the ball. This tug-of-war between lockdown interior defense and stagnant offensive decision-making resulted in a nearly flat net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 28.9m -17.8
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Isaac Okoro 26.2m
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Punishing late closeouts with decisive perimeter shooting allowed him to maximize his offensive role without demanding the ball. His impact surged thanks to elite hustle plays, specifically diving for loose balls that sparked fast-break opportunities. Disciplined defensive sliding kept him out of foul trouble, cementing a highly effective two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.6%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 26.2m -16.2
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Collin Sexton 26.2m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless downhill attacking collapsed the defense and created high-value scoring chances at the rim. He paired this offensive aggression with tenacious on-ball defense, fighting through screens to blow up the opponent's timing. Maintaining his recent streak of offensive efficiency, his disciplined shot selection was the catalyst for a strong positive showing.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 26.2m -16.2
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Jones 25.2m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

A disastrous string of unforced passing errors completely derailed an otherwise efficient shooting night. His inability to organize the half-court offense against trapping schemes led to empty possessions and opponent run-outs. Despite knocking down open looks, the sheer volume of negative-impact turnovers cratered his overall score.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 25.2m -15.6
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
20
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Bully-ball tactics in the paint yielded a significant scoring bump, but his overall value was undercut by slow transition defense. Opponents repeatedly exploited his delayed rim runs, scoring easy points before he could set his feet defensively. While the physical mismatch was evident offensively, the defensive give-back kept his net impact marginal.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 25.1m -15.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

Chasing points through heavily contested isolation plays severely damaged the team's offensive flow. While he found the bottom of the net more often than usual, his defensive matador routines allowed straight-line drives to the basket. The scoring volume was merely a facade for a performance riddled with defensive breakdowns and poor offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 29.0m -18.0
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Struggling to anchor the rebounding battles, he frequently leaked out early and surrendered costly second-chance points. His offensive contributions were steady, but poor screen-setting angles negated potential pick-and-roll advantages. A lack of physical presence in the paint ultimately dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 22.4m -13.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Bobbled entry passes and poor spatial awareness in the dunker spot ruined several promising offensive sets. While he provided adequate rim contests, his inability to secure defensive rebounds cleanly gave the opposition crucial extra possessions. The lack of offensive polish and rebounding fundamentals overshadowed his decent defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 17.3m -10.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Tenacious point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's primary ball-handlers, generating a strong defensive rating. However, his complete inability to puncture the paint or hit open jumpers allowed the defense to play five-on-four. The offensive zero ultimately outweighed his defensive peskiness, dragging his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +4.9
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 15.5m -9.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.8

Complete offensive paralysis and a glaring lack of aggression resulted in a catastrophic net rating. He was repeatedly targeted on defense, failing to navigate off-ball screens and giving up wide-open perimeter looks. A brutal first-quarter stretch of missed rotations and offensive fouls set a negative tone he never recovered from.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -34.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -10.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total -10.7
Avg player in 13.2m -8.1
Impact -18.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Mac McClung 11.0m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

A quick burst of transition scoring provided a brief spark, but his half-court impact was virtually non-existent. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, requiring constant help that compromised the defensive shell. Ultimately, his energetic spurts were perfectly offset by defensive liabilities, resulting in a neutral outing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 11.0m -6.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Ethan Thompson 30.8m
24
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.5

An absolute menace at the point of attack, his relentless ball pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm all night. This two-way surge was defined by aggressive closeouts and high-motor transition sprints that yielded easy fast-break buckets. He capitalized on a breakout offensive rhythm by pairing it with elite perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +38.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 30.8m -19.0
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kobe Brown 28.1m
17
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.9

Elite shot-making around the rim drove a massive offensive rating, but his overall impact was dragged down by sluggish weak-side rotations. He consistently leaked out early rather than securing the defensive glass, neutralizing much of his scoring value. Continuing a hot streak of efficient finishing, his offensive gravity was undeniable despite the defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +36.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 28.1m -17.3
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 21.6m
25
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.3

Dominant mismatch hunting in the mid-post generated high-quality looks and fueled a massive positive impact. He punished switches relentlessly, forcing the defense to collapse and creating secondary actions. A balanced effort with active hands in the passing lanes ensured his offensive production translated directly to winning margins.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +23.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 21.6m -13.3
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quenton Jackson 16.9m
8
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.2

Despite maintaining his recent streak of efficient finishing, a handful of costly live-ball turnovers in the second half erased his offensive contributions. He struggled to navigate drop coverage, leading to forced passes into traffic. Active hands on defense kept him near neutral, but poor decision-making as a primary initiator held him back.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 16.9m -10.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jay Huff 16.8m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Stretching the floor as a trailing big completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. His impeccable shot selection from the perimeter forced opposing centers out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for the guards. Solid screen-setting and timely closeouts kept his overall impact highly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +72.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 16.8m -10.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Taelon Peter 27.5m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A chaotic offensive outing marred by forced drives and blocked shots severely undermined his elite hustle metrics. He was a terror on the offensive glass and generated numerous extra possessions through sheer effort. Unfortunately, failing to convert those second-chance opportunities and poor transition spacing left his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +7.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 27.5m -16.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 25.3m
9
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.5

Perimeter defensive activity was a bright spot, yet his overall impact tanked due to erratic shot selection early in the shot clock. Settling for contested jumpers rather than pressuring the rim allowed the defense to reset easily. His inability to orchestrate clean half-court sets ultimately outweighed his solid point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 25.3m -15.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
0.0

Defensive dominance at the nail completely stifled the opponent's driving lanes, yielding an astronomical defensive rating. However, his offensive execution was virtually non-existent, plagued by hesitation and disrupted spacing on the perimeter. The stark contrast between his lockdown isolation defense and his offensive passivity resulted in a perfectly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 23.9m -14.9
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 2
Ben Sheppard 21.6m
13
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

Relentless off-ball motion and elite screen navigation defined a gritty, high-motor performance. He generated massive value through deflections and loose ball recoveries, completely shutting down his primary assignment on the perimeter. However, a few ill-advised fouls in the bonus slightly capped what was otherwise a defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 21.6m -13.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Micah Potter 16.8m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.1

Capitalizing on defensive miscommunications, he found soft spots in the zone to deliver highly efficient interior scoring. His fundamental box-outs and sturdy post defense prevented second-chance opportunities for the opposition. A steady, mistake-free stint as a rotational big provided a reliable stabilizing force for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 16.8m -10.4
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Obi Toppin 10.8m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

Taking a backseat offensively, his value came entirely from disciplined weak-side rim protection and vertical contests. He anchored a crucial second-quarter defensive stretch by denying entry passes and blowing up dribble hand-offs. Even with his scoring volume halved, his defensive positioning ensured a solid net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 10.8m -6.7
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0