Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Sexton 6/12 +3.5
Giddey 3/12 -8.2
Buzelis 4/9 -1.8
Yabusele Hard 2/9 -4.7
Miller Open 5/8 +2.1
Williams 3/8 -1.8
Okoro Open 3/6 -1.6
Olbrich Open 3/6 -2.1
Jones Open 4/5 +1.5
Dillingham 1/4 -2.5

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Anunoby Hard 9/15 +9.0
Brunson 6/13 -0.5
Bridges 4/12 -4.9
Robinson Open 7/7 +4.2
Shamet 3/7 +0.2
Kolek Hard 3/6 +2.0
Clarkson 2/6 -2.2
Hart Open 3/5 -0.5
Dadiet Hard 2/5 -0.7
McBride Hard 2/4 +1.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
NYK
35/81 Field Goals 48/91
43.2% Field Goal % 52.7%
11/35 3-Pointers 15/39
31.4% 3-Point % 38.5%
15/26 Free Throws 25/28
57.7% Free Throw % 89.3%
51.9% True Shooting % 65.8%
46 Total Rebounds 57
9 Offensive 13
27 Defensive 41
24 Assists 30
1.50 Assist/TO Ratio 3.33
16 Turnovers 8
4 Steals 11
2 Blocks 3
23 Fouls 21
48 Points in Paint 60
17 Fast Break Pts 19
9 Points off TOs 28
7 Second Chance Pts 22
54 Bench Points 52
0 Largest Lead 47
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Mitchell Robinson
17 PTS · 11 REB · 0 AST · 22.9 MIN
+28.12
2
OG Anunoby
31 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 30.5 MIN
+26.88
3
Collin Sexton
19 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 28.5 MIN
+12.12
4
Tre Jones
13 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 25.9 MIN
+11.84
5
Jeremy Sochan
7 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 16.9 MIN
+10.58
6
Isaac Okoro
7 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 26.4 MIN
+10.42
7
Jordan Clarkson
4 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 9.4 MIN
+9.93
8
Leonard Miller
14 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 27.6 MIN
+9.87
9
Miles McBride
6 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 12.7 MIN
+9.65
10
Jalen Brunson
17 PTS · 1 REB · 10 AST · 29.8 MIN
+9.64
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 NYK shot clock Team TURNOVER 96–136
Q4 0:24 L. Miller cutting Layup (14 PTS) (Y. Kawamura 1 AST) 96–136
Q4 0:36 J. Alvarado bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 94–136
Q4 0:53 P. Williams 25' 3PT pullup (7 PTS) 94–136
Q4 1:00 P. Dadiet 26' 3PT (5 PTS) (T. Kolek 2 AST) 91–136
Q4 1:08 M. Diawara REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 91–133
Q4 1:10 MISS M. McClung step back 3PT 91–133
Q4 1:25 J. Alvarado 10' pullup Jump Shot (2 PTS) (M. Diawara 2 AST) 91–133
Q4 1:46 L. Miller Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 91–131
Q4 1:46 L. Miller Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 90–131
Q4 1:46 M. Diawara shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Miller 2 FT) 89–131
Q4 1:46 L. Miller REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 89–131
Q4 1:47 MISS L. Miller driving Layup 89–131
Q4 1:59 A. Hukporti Free Throw 2 of 2 (6 PTS) 89–131
Q4 1:59 A. Hukporti Free Throw 1 of 2 (5 PTS) 89–130

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 30.5m
31
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+25.5

A transcendent two-way performance was fueled by lethal catch-and-shoot efficiency and suffocating wing defense. He broke the opponent's spirit with a barrage of corner threes during a dominant third-quarter surge. His ability to seamlessly switch across four positions anchored the entire defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.9%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +47.5
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +26.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +7.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 29.9m
17
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-level playmaking and steady offensive orchestration were offset by significant defensive shortcomings. He was repeatedly hunted in mismatch post-ups, forcing the defense to over-help and concede open shooters. Despite threading the needle on several spectacular pocket passes, the defensive concessions kept him in the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Hart 28.2m
7
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.2

Generated massive value through elite rebounding and infectious energy, constantly keeping plays alive. However, his overall impact slipped into the red due to offensive spacing issues and a reluctance to shoot open jumpers. His signature coast-to-coast pushes off defensive rebounds were the lone bright spots in his offensive profile.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +48.5
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +9.1
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+27.7

Utterly dominated the paint with flawless finishing and terrifying rim protection. He demoralized the opposing frontcourt by converting multiple second-chance opportunities through sheer physical force. A stretch of three consecutive blocked shots in the first half set a physical tone that the opponent never recovered from.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +30.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +16.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +14.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Mikal Bridges 22.7m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

An uncharacteristically cold shooting night from beyond the arc dragged down his overall effectiveness. While he maintained solid defensive positioning, his inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to pack the paint. His struggles to create separation against physical wing defenders defined a frustrating offensive outing.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Made his mark through elite defensive versatility and flawless shot selection around the basket. He perfectly executed the defensive game plan by blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. A quiet but highly effective stint was defined by his willingness to do the dirty work in the trenches.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +82.8
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Provided a crucial spacing element by knocking down timely perimeter shots off movement. He surprised defensively by fighting through screens and staying attached to his man. A pair of quick-trigger threes in the second quarter forced the defense to completely alter their rotation scheme.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Changed the complexion of the game with ferocious on-ball pressure and timely perimeter shot-making. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow by picking up the point guard full-court. His defensive tenacity translated directly into easy transition opportunities for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +48.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

Showed flashes of offensive potential but gave the value back through slow defensive processing. He was caught ball-watching on several backdoor cuts, leading to easy layups for the opposition. While his offensive cuts were sharp, his off-ball defensive awareness remains a work in progress.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Wreaked absolute havoc defensively with his signature backcourt pressure and active hands. Even with his jumper not falling, his ability to generate deflections and disrupt offensive timing was invaluable. A sequence where he drew an offensive foul and immediately forced a turnover perfectly encapsulated his gritty impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 12.0m
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Efficient perimeter shooting was overshadowed by an inability to control the game's tempo and a lack of hustle plays. He struggled to organize the half-court offense against aggressive trapping schemes. A tendency to pick up his dribble too early against ball pressure stunted several promising possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Failed to make a meaningful imprint on the game outside of a few isolated scoring plays. His complete lack of hustle metrics points to a passive approach on loose balls and transition defense. He was frequently late on closeouts, allowing rhythm jumpers that damaged his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

Despite a dip in scoring efficiency, he drove positive impact through surprisingly stout positional defense and smart ball movement. He leveraged his scoring gravity to create driving lanes for teammates rather than forcing his own offense. A disciplined approach to closing out on shooters highlighted a mature performance.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +126.4
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Maximized his brief appearance by playing within himself and finishing strongly at the rim. He provided solid interior resistance without committing unnecessary fouls. A thunderous put-back dunk showcased his physical tools and anchored a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 26.4m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless effort on loose balls drove a highly positive impact despite a quiet scoring night. He completely neutralized his primary assignment during a pivotal third-quarter run, forcing multiple rushed decisions. The scoring dip was entirely masked by his disruptive defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -71.3
+/- -40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tre Jones 25.9m
13
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.5

Flawless offensive execution and high-level distribution generated a massive box score impact, keeping the offense humming. However, his overall value was muted by defensive liabilities at the point of attack, where he was repeatedly blown by in isolation. A masterful pick-and-roll clinic in the first half showcased his elite decision-making, even if he gave points back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Giddey 25.7m
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.2

A disastrous offensive showing was defined by errant passes and an inability to break down the defense off the dribble. Even though he competed on the defensive end, his struggles to convert at the rim allowed the defense to sag off and clog the passing lanes. His hesitance to attack drop coverage stalled multiple possessions, dragging his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.3%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -53.0
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

A barrage of forced, contested jumpers from the perimeter severely damaged his overall value. While he provided decent positional rebounding and physical screens, his poor shot selection derailed the offense's rhythm in the half-court. His tendency to settle for outside looks instead of attacking the paint was a glaring weakness tonight.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -47.8
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 23.2m
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Impact cratered due to a high volume of missed perimeter shots and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. Despite generating solid hustle metrics through active hands in the passing lanes, his inability to finish through contact defined a rough second-half stretch. The negative overall score reflects how much his offensive inefficiency dragged down the lineup.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
19
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Blistering perimeter efficiency and relentless downhill pressure drove a strong positive impact. He consistently punished defensive miscommunications with timely weak-side cuts and transition sprints. His high-energy closeouts proved he was locked in on both ends of the floor, perfectly complementing his scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Highly efficient scoring and active offensive rebounding kept his baseline impact strongly positive. He capitalized on defensive rotations by finding soft spots in the zone during a crucial second-quarter stretch. Minor defensive lapses in pick-and-roll coverage kept his total score from matching his impressive offensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -44.9
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.6

Passive offensive stretches and a failure to secure defensive rebounds in traffic led to a heavily negative overall rating. He showed flashes of solid weak-side rim protection, but his inability to establish deep post position allowed smaller defenders to push him off his spots. A string of late-clock bail-out misses highlighted his lack of assertiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -45.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.3

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game, with his impact tanking due to poor spacing and rushed decisions against ball pressure. He was frequently targeted in switches, forcing the defense into scramble mode to cover his assignment. A particularly rough stint navigating screens in the fourth quarter highlighted his physical limitations tonight.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Solid interior finishing was completely undone by poor rim protection and slow defensive rotations. Opponents relentlessly attacked him in the pick-and-roll, exposing his heavy feet on the perimeter. Despite providing a spark as a roll man, the defensive bleeding made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Barely registered a pulse during his brief stint, failing to generate any offensive gravity or hustle plays. He spent most of his minutes floating on the perimeter without putting pressure on the rim. A complete lack of ball-handling aggression made his rotation minutes entirely forgettable.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Maximized his limited run by immediately knocking down an open look and making quick, decisive passes. He provided a brief but effective spark by pushing the pace in transition. His ability to instantly adapt to the game's tempo justified his positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0