GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Yves Missi 39.8m
18
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.9

Flawless finishing around the rim and elite defensive anchoring (+6.0) skyrocketed Missi's net rating to the top of the charts. He dominated the painted area, utilizing his length to erase mistakes and generating massive value through second-chance opportunities (+4.2 Hustle). A masterclass in pick-and-roll execution and vertical spacing made him an absolute nightmare for the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.6%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 39.8m -16.1
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
S Saddiq Bey 38.8m
32
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Massive shot volume and relentless scoring aggression fueled Bey's stellar box score impact (+19.6). Even with a few forced looks in isolation, his ability to continuously bend the defense and draw attention opened up the floor. A willingness to absorb contact on drives and finish through traffic defined his dominant offensive showcase.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 38.8m -15.7
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 36.7m
19
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.6

Poor shooting efficiency completely neutralized Fears' otherwise strong defensive (+3.8) and hustle (+3.0) metrics. He repeatedly short-circuited offensive possessions with ill-advised jumpers early in the shot clock, bleeding away the value he created on the other end. His inability to find a rhythm as a scorer ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 36.7m -15.0
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Zion Williamson 27.8m
17
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Williamson's impact was surprisingly muted due to a lack of defensive playmaking and minimal hustle contributions (+0.4). While his interior scoring remained highly efficient, he struggled to impose his will physically and frequently settled for contested looks. A passive stretch in the second half prevented him from taking over the game in his usual dominant fashion.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 27.8m -11.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 8.7m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

In a brief stint, Jones provided a steadying presence characterized by smart cuts and timely defensive rotations. He didn't force the issue offensively, taking only high-percentage looks and maintaining floor balance. His quick hands and positional awareness disrupted a few key actions, ensuring his short shift was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 8.7m -3.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Peavy 27.9m
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Offensive ineptitude severely punished Peavy's net rating, as he clanked multiple open looks and stalled the half-court offense. Although he fought hard defensively (+2.8), his defender was able to completely ignore him on the perimeter, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. This lack of floor spacing turned him into an offensive liability that his hustle could not overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 27.9m -11.3
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.0

A frigid shooting night and defensive invisibility combined to produce a disastrous net rating for Hawkins. He struggled to navigate screens, frequently dying on picks and forcing teammates into scramble situations. Because his primary value is tied to his jumper, missing his perimeter looks rendered him highly detrimental to the team's success.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 26.4m -10.7
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Derik Queen 18.3m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

A severe lack of offensive production and inability to establish deep post position cratered Queen's effectiveness. He was repeatedly pushed off his spots by stronger defenders, leading to rushed attempts and wasted possessions. Without his usual scoring punch, his modest defensive contributions weren't nearly enough to salvage a highly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 18.3m -7.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Alexander managed to scrape together a slightly positive impact through energetic perimeter defense and opportunistic scoring. He stayed within his role, attacking closeouts decisively and avoiding costly turnovers. A couple of hard-nosed closeouts on shooters highlighted a disciplined, low-mistake performance.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 11.3m -4.6
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Dickinson was a complete non-factor during his brief time on the court, failing to register any meaningful positive plays. He looked a step slow in pick-and-roll coverage, allowing guards to turn the corner with ease. Without any offensive touches to balance the scales, his short appearance was a distinct negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 4.4m -1.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 38.0m
23
pts
16
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.5

A massive defensive rating (+7.5) and relentless hustle (+4.0) propelled Banchero's overall value, compensating for a volume-heavy, inefficient shooting chart. He dominated the interior by outmuscling his matchups, drawing fouls, and fighting for loose balls. This gritty, physical approach allowed him to dictate the game's tempo even when his perimeter jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 11/15 (73.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 38.0m -15.5
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Desmond Bane 34.1m
27
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Bane's elite net rating was driven by a combination of aggressive shot creation and high-level hustle (+4.0). He constantly pressured the defense, leveraging his gravity to open up driving lanes, while simultaneously disrupting passing lanes on the other end. A relentless motor characterized his night, allowing him to overcome a few forced attempts and generate immense overall value.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 34.1m -13.9
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 33.6m
11
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.8

An abysmal shooting performance completely cratered Suggs' impact score, as he squandered possessions with poor shot selection from beyond the arc. While his trademark hustle (+4.3) and playmaking remained intact, the sheer volume of missed jumpers killed offensive momentum. His inability to recognize when to defer to teammates ultimately defined a frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 4/19 (21.1%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 33.6m -13.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite near-perfect offensive efficiency, Carter Jr.'s overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses (-2.5). He struggled to anchor the paint against pick-and-roll actions, frequently giving up deep positioning or arriving late on rotations. His highly effective scoring was ultimately undone by his inability to string together consecutive stops.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.5
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 31.8m -13.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Franz Wagner 20.2m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Wagner's positive impact was anchored by his defensive contributions (+2.3) rather than his scoring efficiency, which dipped from his recent hot streak. His ability to generate stops and secure extra possessions kept him in the black despite a middling shooting night. A few timely rotations in the half-court defined his steady, if unspectacular, two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 20.2m -8.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jamal Cain 27.6m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Cain's negative overall impact stemmed from a lack of defensive resistance and minimal hustle metrics, offsetting a decent offensive showing. He frequently found himself out of position on closeouts, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. Without generating extra possessions or stops, his modest scoring wasn't enough to keep his head above water.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 27.6m -11.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 20.8m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

A sudden burst of offensive aggression drove Carter's positive rating, as he confidently hunted his shot and capitalized on defensive breakdowns. He paired this scoring punch with solid hustle (+2.1), extending possessions and applying persistent ball pressure. His ability to break out of a recent slump and punish drop coverage completely shifted the momentum during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 20.8m -8.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Offensive invisibility severely dragged down da Silva's rating, as he failed to capitalize on his touches and completely vanished from the scoring column. Though he provided a slight defensive lift (+2.8), his lack of aggression and inability to space the floor allowed defenders to sag off him. A passive approach on the perimeter neutralized any value he brought to the other end of the court.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 17.6m -7.2
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Goga Bitadze 16.2m
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

High-level rim protection (+4.3 Def) and flawless shot selection allowed Bitadze to maximize his limited minutes. He served as a formidable deterrent in the paint, altering several attempts and cleaning up the glass efficiently. Playing entirely within himself, he provided exactly the kind of low-mistake, high-leverage interior presence the second unit needed.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 16.2m -6.6
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2