GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 37.7m
31
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.4

Completely dictated the terms of engagement with overpowering mismatch hunting and elite shot creation. Breaking out of a recent slump by aggressively attacking the rim warped the defense and opened up the floor for teammates. His massive +8.0 defensive metric shows he was equally dominant shutting down the opponent's primary actions.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +25.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.0
Raw total +37.2
Avg player in 37.7m -19.8
Impact +17.4
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 33.9m
12
pts
6
reb
12
ast
Impact
+7.2

Orchestrated the offense flawlessly while suffocating opposing guards at the point of attack. His +8.8 defensive impact reflects relentless ball pressure that blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions before they could develop. By prioritizing high-leverage playmaking over his own shot, he maximized the efficiency of the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +41.8
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.8
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 33.9m -17.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.2

Severe defensive breakdowns and likely costly turnovers completely overshadowed a decent shooting night. Despite showing flashes of hustle, he was repeatedly exploited in isolation matchups, bleeding points at an alarming rate. His inability to stay in front of quicker wings drove his impact score into the basement.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 33.2m -17.4
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Desmond Bane 32.1m
25
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Punished drop coverages with lethal perimeter shot-making that heavily skewed his box impact. He complemented his scoring gravity with excellent defensive positioning, frequently jumping passing lanes to disrupt opponent sets. This dual-threat performance kept the opposing defense in constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.6
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 32.1m -16.8
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing by picking his spots perfectly within the flow of the offense. He anchored the paint with disciplined drop coverage, forcing tough mid-range attempts without fouling. This low-mistake, high-IQ execution provided a highly stable positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +61.5
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 18.4m -9.7
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 24.2m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Generated tremendous value through sheer physical effort, posting an elite +5.4 hustle rating. He dominated the interior with timely offensive putbacks and sturdy rim protection that deterred drives. This blue-collar execution easily pushed his impact into the positive despite limited offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 24.2m -12.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
Jevon Carter 19.2m
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

An elite defensive showing (+7.2) was nearly enough to offset a completely barren offensive performance. Hounding ball-handlers relentlessly created havoc, but his inability to knock down open perimeter looks allowed defenders to heavily stunt off him. The resulting offensive spacing issues ultimately tipped his net impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 19.2m -10.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Overcame inefficient shooting by making his presence felt as a disruptive perimeter defender. His +5.0 defensive rating stemmed from navigating screens effectively and blowing up dribble hand-offs. He managed to positively influence the game purely through high-IQ defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.7%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 15.5m -8.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Cain 11.1m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Faded into the background during his brief stint, failing to assert himself offensively. While he avoided glaring mistakes, his lack of aggression allowed the defense to rest when he was on the floor. This passive approach resulted in a slight negative drag on the overall lineup.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 11.1m -5.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Managed to keep his head above water during spot minutes by converting his lone opportunity. He stayed disciplined within the defensive scheme, avoiding the foul trouble that often plagues young guards. A completely neutral, mistake-free shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 5.7m -3.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided a quick, stabilizing spark during a very brief rotational window. Executing his assignments cleanly without forcing the issue ensured the bench unit maintained its momentum. It was a low-volume but perfectly efficient cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Barely saw the floor, logging under two minutes of action. He offered a slight defensive presence but didn't have enough time to alter the game's trajectory.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.8m -1.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Rushed his lone offensive touch during a fleeting late-game appearance. The missed shot and lack of measurable hustle stats resulted in a minor negative blip on the radar.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 1.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Continued his recent offensive struggles by forcing up a heavily contested look in limited action. Failing to register any defensive or hustle metrics meant there was nothing to compensate for the empty possession. His brief stint was entirely unproductive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Daniss Jenkins 33.6m
18
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.2

Empty-calorie production defined his minutes, as a seemingly solid offensive night masked severe on-court bleeding. Poor transition defense and costly live-ball turnovers cratered his overall net rating despite decent shooting splits. He struggled to organize the offense during critical stretches, giving back everything he generated.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 33.6m -17.5
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kevin Huerter 31.7m
17
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

A massive defensive rating (+8.9) was the unexpected engine behind his positive impact tonight. He broke out of a recent scoring slump with aggressive perimeter shot-making, but it was his crisp off-ball defensive rotations that truly kept the team afloat. This two-way engagement represented a sharp turnaround from his recent passive outings.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.9
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 31.7m -16.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Duren 31.6m
18
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Hidden costs dragged his overall net impact into the red despite excellent interior finishing that heavily padded his box score. Poor rotational positioning likely bled points during his stints, completely negating his offensive efficiency. His lack of secondary rim protection allowed opponents to capitalize when he was pulled into space.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 31.6m -16.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ausar Thompson 31.0m
8
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite energy and defensive activity drove a positive impact despite modest offensive volume. Active hands and constant off-ball movement translated into a stellar +5.3 hustle rating. He maximized his touches by finishing efficiently around the rim when cutting.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +8.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 31.0m -16.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Paul Reed 18.6m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Continued his highly efficient interior finishing streak to anchor the second-unit scoring. While his defensive metrics dipped slightly into the negative, his reliable shot selection kept his overall impact firmly in the green. He provided a steadying, low-mistake presence during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -57.2
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 18.6m -9.8
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

An absolute menace on the defensive end, using relentless ball pressure to generate a massive +9.1 defensive impact. He paired this point-of-attack disruption with high-energy hustle plays that created extra possessions and transition opportunities. This two-way aggression fueled a breakout performance that far exceeded his recent baseline.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +9.1
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 27.2m -14.3
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Errant shot selection and a lack of offensive rhythm severely hampered his floor time. Although he tried to compensate with active defensive closeouts, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag and clog the paint. The resulting offensive stagnation tanked his net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 19.1m -9.9
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.5

A complete lack of hustle plays and poor perimeter efficiency resulted in a disastrous minus-11.5 impact score. Settling for contested jumpers instead of attacking the paint short-circuited multiple offensive possessions. Without any defensive playmaking to offset the missed shots, his minutes were highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 18.2m -9.6
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Chaz Lanier 16.0m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

Ice-cold perimeter shooting completely derailed his offensive value, leading to a steep negative impact. Opponents aggressively ignored him off the ball, which destroyed the team's spacing and stalled half-court sets. The lack of secondary playmaking meant he had no way to salvage his minutes when the jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 16.0m -8.3
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tolu Smith 13.0m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Capitalized on limited touches to surge past his recent scoring baseline, but defensive lapses kept his overall impact slightly negative. Opponents frequently targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points on the other end. The interior scoring burst simply couldn't outpace his defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.4
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 13.0m -6.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0