CHI

2025-26 Season

MATAS BUZELIS

Chicago Bulls | Forward | 6-8
Matas Buzelis
16.3 PPG
5.8 RPG
2.0 APG
29.2 MPG
-0.5 Impact

Buzelis produces at an average rate for a 29-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.5
Scoring +10.0
Points 16.3 PPG × +1.00 = +16.3
Missed 2PT 2.5/g × -0.78 = -2.0
Missed 3PT 4.1/g × -0.87 = -3.6
Missed FT 0.7/g × -1.00 = -0.7
Creation +2.8
Assists 2.0/g × +0.50 = +1.0
Off. Rebounds 1.4/g × +1.26 = +1.8
Turnovers -4.1
Turnovers 2.1/g × -1.95 = -4.1
Defense +2.4
Steals 0.7/g × +2.30 = +1.6
Blocks 1.5/g × +0.90 = +1.4
Def. Rebounds 4.3/g × +0.30 = +1.3
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.9
Contested Shots 7.9/g × +0.20 = +1.6
Deflections 1.4/g × +0.65 = +0.9
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.4/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +14.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −14.5
Net Impact
-0.5
44th pctl vs Forwards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 80th
16.3 PPG
Efficiency 61th
58.3% TS
Playmaking 64th
2.0 APG
Rebounding 80th
5.8 RPG
Rim Protection 70th
0.17/min
Hustle 49th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 15th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Matas Buzelis’s opening twenty games were defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between brilliant defensive flashes and self-inflicted offensive sabotage. He frequently put up hollow numbers that masked underlying flaws. On 11/12 vs DET, Buzelis stuffed the box score with 21 points and 14 rebounds, yet his overall impact slipped to a -1.2 due to costly live-ball turnovers. Conversely, he found ways to salvage rough shooting nights through sheer defensive willpower. During the 11/29 vs IND matchup, he managed a meager 8 points but still posted a +2.3 impact thanks to elite weak-side rotations and relentless rim-deterrence. Unfortunately, when his shot selection failed him, the results were entirely toxic. A disastrous 0-for-5 showing from beyond the arc on 11/28 vs CHA completely tanked his value, resulting in a brutal -13.4 impact score. If Buzelis expects to be a reliable rotation piece, he must stop letting erratic perimeter shooting dictate his nightly worth.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by a maddening tug-of-war between Buzelis’s elite defensive instincts and his stubborn, erratic perimeter shooting. When the outside shot actually fell, the results were terrifying for opponents. He absolutely torched the nets on 12/21 vs ATL, riding a massive surge in perimeter confidence to 28 points and a staggering +14.2 impact score. Too often, however, he fell in love with a broken jumper. Despite dropping 17 points on 01/03 vs CHA, he posted a dismal -7.9 impact because he recklessly forced the issue from beyond the arc and torpedoed his own offensive efficiency. Thankfully, his physical tools routinely salvaged his worst shooting nights. During the 01/16 vs BKN matchup, he bricked his way to an ugly 4-for-15 shooting line, yet still generated a +10.4 impact through elite weak-side rim protection. If he stops chucking contested threes and leans into his defensive motor, his two-way ceiling is monstrous.

A maddening inconsistency defined Matas Buzelis’s midseason stretch, characterized by a volatile tug-of-war between elite shot creation and destructive perimeter chucking. He routinely undermined his own offensive outbursts with hidden costs, evident on 01/30 vs MIA where he dropped 21 points but posted a dismal -7.2 impact score because inefficient volume shooting completely derailed his team's rhythm. The floor entirely fell out a few weeks later on 02/19 vs TOR. During that brutal matchup, a catastrophic 0-for-7 night from beyond the arc cratered his rating to a -17.2 as opponents simply ignored him on the perimeter. Yet, just when his decision-making looked broken, he would tap into his true ceiling. On 02/24 vs CHA, Buzelis erupted for 32 points on 13-of-19 shooting, generating a massive +12.8 impact by delivering a masterclass in shot creation and lethal perimeter execution. If he wants to be a reliable franchise pillar, he must stop letting erratic shot selection sabotage his undeniable talent.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Buzelis's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 50% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Buzelis consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 75 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

J. Johnson 92.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 16
A. Wiggins 68.8 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 10
A. Green 63.4 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 13
M. Bridges 55.9 poss
FG% 9.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 3
S. Barnes 53.0 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
P. Siakam 51.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 11
M. Bridges 51.3 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 11
K. Knueppel 48.7 poss
FG% 38.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 13
A. Thompson 48.3 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 14
J. Green 48.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.15
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

M. Bridges 73.9 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.32
PTS 24
B. Ingram 63.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 16
A. Green 61.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.19
PTS 12
A. Wiggins 60.0 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.23
PTS 14
N. Clowney 56.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 16
A. Thompson 56.0 poss
FG% 30.8%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 9
K. Durant 55.7 poss
FG% 63.2%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.5
PTS 28
F. Wagner 50.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 5
D. Wolf 49.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 10
J. Green 49.5 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

76
Games
16.3
PPG
5.8
RPG
2.0
APG
0.7
SPG
1.5
BPG
46.5
FG%
35.6
3P%
78.7
FT%
29.2
MPG

GAME LOG

76 games played