GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Yves Missi 31.2m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Strong rim protection and active hustle metrics were completely undone by offensive spacing issues and likely foul trouble. He clogged the driving lanes for teammates, resulting in a steep negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 31.2m -18.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
S Saddiq Bey 31.1m
18
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Torched the nets from beyond the arc, but a negative total impact reveals severe defensive liabilities. Opponents consistently blew past his closeouts, turning his offensive fireworks into a wash.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 31.1m -18.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 29.7m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.1

An absolute disaster of a shooting night combined with poor decision-making sent his impact plunging into the deep red. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock repeatedly fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 29.7m -17.7
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dejounte Murray 28.2m
19
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.3

Broke out of a recent slump by aggressively attacking the midrange and taking care of the basketball. Strong hustle metrics highlight his commitment to fighting over screens, driving a highly positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 28.2m -16.8
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 25.3m
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

Bully-ball tactics in the paint yielded highly efficient results, yet his overall impact barely moved the needle. A lack of secondary effort and minimal defensive resistance allowed the opposition to match his output.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 25.3m -15.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Derik Queen 24.0m
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Anchored the paint with massive defensive metrics, altering numerous attempts at the rim. However, his overall impact slipped into the red due to an inefficient, high-volume diet of contested looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 24.0m -14.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

Shot selection was the primary culprit for his negative grade, as a heavy volume of forced attempts derailed the offensive flow. Despite active hands on defense, his inability to recognize when to pass completely capped his value.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -56.0
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 22.1m -13.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Abandoned his highly efficient interior game to launch ill-advised perimeter shots, instantly snapping a dominant shooting streak. This sudden shift in shot profile resulted in empty trips and a severely negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -67.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 16.9m -10.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Micah Peavy 16.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Completely invisible on the offensive end, logging significant minutes without applying any rim pressure. This passive approach allowed defenders to sag off, wrecking the team's spacing and tanking his impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 16.2m -9.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Yanked quickly after a disastrous stint characterized by forced isolation plays and zero defensive resistance. His inability to play within the flow of the offense resulted in a sharp negative score in minimal time.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -111.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 6.2m -3.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Failed to find the rhythm that defined his recent hot streak, looking hesitant against physical coverage. A lack of off-ball separation limited his touches and resulted in a slightly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 5.5m -3.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Swallowed up loose balls at an elite rate during a tiny window of playing time. His singular focus on securing the glass provided a quick, positive bump.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -80.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 3.6m -2.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 34.9m
14
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

Elite activity levels defined this outing, with relentless off-ball movement driving exceptional hustle metrics. By attacking the paint instead of settling for jumpers, he maximized his value without needing high offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +4.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 34.9m -20.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

A barrage of connected deep looks kept his offensive value afloat, but his nearly flat overall score points to significant defensive bleeding. He struggled to contain his assignment in space, giving back almost everything he generated.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 33.3m -19.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 31.8m
36
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+36.2

Absolutely pulverized the interior defense with a relentless post-up masterclass that generated immense offensive gravity. His ability to consistently finish through contact fueled an astronomical leap over his recent scoring baseline, driving a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +41.0
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +49.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +55.1
Avg player in 31.8m -18.9
Impact +36.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 28.8m
20
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.6

Impact fell into the red due to a heavy diet of clanked perimeter jumpers that stalled the offense. The sheer volume of empty possessions from deep completely erased his otherwise solid baseline contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 28.8m -17.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Reed Sheppard 21.3m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

A steep drop in offensive aggression compared to his recent hot streak left him floating on the perimeter. Without his usual scoring punch to offset defensive limitations, his impact cratered quickly.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 21.3m -12.7
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Sinking a few perimeter shots couldn't mask the damage done by defensive breakdowns and likely live-ball turnovers. The negative overall score indicates he was consistently targeted and exploited on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +77.5
+/- +41
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 25.2m -15.0
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 22.3m
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Capitalized on defensive rotations with sharp, decisive cuts that resulted in a highly efficient scoring bump. His ability to finish plays without dominating the ball provided a crucial secondary lift.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 22.3m -13.3
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 16.1m
6
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Completely controlled the glass during a brief but dominant stint, securing second-chance opportunities at an absurd rate. This hyper-focused rebounding effort anchored a strong positive impact despite him barely looking at the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense 0.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 16.1m -9.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Defensive versatility was the sole driver of his positive impact, highlighted by elite defensive metrics in limited action. He blew up multiple screening actions to keep the unit afloat while offering almost nothing offensively.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +103.8
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 13.4m -8.0
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Provided a quick jolt of energy in a brief cameo, using active hands to disrupt passing lanes. His willingness to make the extra rotation kept his short stint in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 5.5m -3.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 3.7m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Executed his role perfectly in a micro-stint by simply being in the right spot for a quick finish. Avoided any mistakes to register a marginal positive score.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Forced bad looks during garbage time, resulting in empty possessions that dragged his impact down. Failed to process the defense quickly enough in his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 3.7m -2.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1