GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHI Chicago Bulls
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Clanking a high volume of shots completely erased the value of his robust box score metrics. The offense bogged down during his post-ups, and his inability to convert efficiently around the rim resulted in a damaging negative impact.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 30.8m -16.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Coby White 28.5m
20
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

Overcame a horrific perimeter shooting night by relentlessly attacking the paint and generating elite defensive value. His relentless two-way motor and hustle plays salvaged what could have been a catastrophic analytical profile.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 28.5m -15.5
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Giddey 24.1m
11
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.0

Hemorrhaged value through hidden mistakes, likely live-ball turnovers or poor transition defense, leading to a brutal negative net rating. His mediocre shooting splits failed to offset the damage he caused when initiating the offense.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 24.1m -12.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Matas Buzelis 23.6m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Scaling back his usual scoring volume allowed him to maintain a highly efficient offensive profile and keep his impact positive. Solid defensive rotations ensured that his low-usage night still contributed to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 23.6m -12.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Isaac Okoro 23.5m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

A disastrous shooting performance from beyond the arc torpedoed his overall value. While he fought hard on the margins with elite hustle, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions crippled the team's spacing and momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 23.5m -12.7
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

Delivered a masterclass in two-way efficiency, pairing lethal perimeter spacing with an astronomical defensive rating. His ability to blow up opposing actions on the wing while punishing closeouts made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +10.1
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 24.3m -13.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
Tre Jones 24.3m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

An abrupt end to his hot shooting streak was completely overshadowed by his phenomenal defensive pressure. He dictated the tempo with elite hustle, proving he can drive winning margins even when his jumper abandons him.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 24.3m -13.1
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Despite breaking out of a severe scoring slump, his overall impact remained deeply negative. Defensive passivity and an inability to secure contested boards allowed opponents to generate debilitating second-chance opportunities during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 23.6m -12.8
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dalen Terry 13.4m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Capitalized on a rare offensive explosion by finishing nearly everything he touched around the basket. His hyper-efficient shot selection maximized his brief rotation, keeping the secondary unit firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 13.4m -7.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 12.3m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided steady rim protection to barely keep his head above water in the impact metrics. A lack of rebounding presence limited his overall ceiling, but he avoided the costly mistakes that plague backup bigs.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 12.3m -6.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Zach Collins 11.6m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Completely invisible on the offensive end, taking just one shot while dragging the spacing down. His slight positive contributions in hustle and defense couldn't mask how much the offense stagnated with him as the screener.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 11.6m -6.3
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 33.7m
20
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Efficient scoring inside the arc anchored his positive overall impact, continuing a strong recent offensive stretch. However, his massive box score rating was heavily muted by hidden negative value, likely from missed rotations or foul costs, dragging his total impact down to a modest +2.6.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 33.7m -18.2
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 28.1m
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Consistent downhill pressure and steady finishing maintained his positive momentum from recent games. Strong defensive rotations bolstered his impact, though hidden mistakes like live-ball turnovers likely prevented his total score from matching his stellar box metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.9
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 28.1m -15.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derik Queen 24.8m
4
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.8

Impact cratered to a team-worst -13.8 due to severe offensive passivity and likely high turnover costs that aren't shown in the basic shooting splits. While he offered some defensive resistance, his inability to generate clean looks completely derailed the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 24.8m -13.5
Impact -13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Saddiq Bey 24.7m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

A severe drop in offensive efficiency from his recent baseline limited his overall value. He salvaged a positive net impact entirely through defensive disruption and high-energy hustle plays that masked his shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 24.7m -13.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Herbert Jones 19.8m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite an uptick in scoring volume, his overall rating slipped into the negative due to poor shot selection from the perimeter. Elite hustle metrics couldn't fully offset the damage from uncharacteristic defensive lapses and bricked threes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 19.8m -10.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Poole 27.3m
16
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.2

A massive surge in defensive engagement and hustle plays completely redefined his value after a brutal two-game slump. Although his shot selection from deep remained erratic, the sheer volume of his two-way activity drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 27.3m -14.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

Bully-ball tactics in the paint drove a massive box score rating, even with a slight dip in his usual elite finishing efficiency. He provided steady defensive value to ensure his offensive gravity translated into a solid net positive for the starting group.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 26.6m -14.4
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Excellent point-of-attack defense wasn't quite enough to overcome his complete lack of offensive production. His inability to pressure the rim or create advantages in the half-court dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 17.6m -9.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Elite energy plays defined this highly impactful short stint off the bench. He maximized his limited touches by avoiding mistakes and generating extra possessions, proving that low usage can still yield a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 14.3m -7.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

Snapping a hot shooting streak didn't deter him from delivering a massive positive impact through sheer defensive dominance. His rim protection and positional discipline completely shut down opposing bench units during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 12.0m -6.4
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Yves Missi 11.2m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Failed to make a meaningful dent despite decent finishing, as his minutes were likely plagued by defensive miscommunications or foul trouble. The underlying metrics suggest he gave back more points in transition than he helped create in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 11.2m -6.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2