GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 29.7m
18
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite strong individual scoring, his net impact suffered from defensive miscommunications on the perimeter that led to open opponent threes. He struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, consistently trailing his man and giving up easy catch-and-shoot looks. The offensive output was solid, but defensive breakdowns in the half-court proved costly.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 29.7m -18.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Paolo Banchero 29.4m
20
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.1

Bully-ball tactics in the mid-post consistently collapsed the defense, allowing him to dictate the pace of the game. Leveraging his physical advantage to generate high-quality looks, he also made timely weak-side rotations on defense. This dual-threat capability anchored the team's success during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 29.4m -17.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 25.2m
11
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

Menacing point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation and fueled his positive impact. Blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs with his physicality and anticipation set a grueling tone. While offensive volume was modest, his timely spot-up shooting punished defenders who sagged off him.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.2m -15.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Franz Wagner 21.6m
17
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

A balanced, methodical approach yielded a slightly positive impact, driven by his ability to slash through the defense using Euro-steps. He absorbed contact well on drives but occasionally missed the kick-out read to open shooters. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't bleed points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 21.6m -15.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite screen-setting and physical box-outs weren't quite enough to overcome a passive offensive showing. Passing up several open looks from the perimeter allowed the defense to pack the paint against drivers. While interior defense was stout, the lack of scoring gravity slightly depressed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 19.6m -12.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 21.7m
14
pts
15
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.3

Absolute dominance on the interior defined this performance, as he swallowed up rebounds and altered countless shots at the rim. Feasting on second-chance opportunities, he used his size to overwhelm smaller defenders in the paint. This commanding presence in the painted area completely dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +45.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 21.7m -14.3
Impact +17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Smart off-ball movement and decisive catch-and-shoot execution highlighted a highly efficient offensive stint. Consistently finding the soft spots in the zone defense provided a reliable release valve for primary creators. Fundamental team defense ensured he remained a net positive throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 19.7m -11.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jamal Cain 16.3m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Rushed attempts in transition and a failure to secure contested rebounds dragged his impact into negative territory. Showing flashes of athleticism on cuts, he nonetheless struggled to finish through contact at the rim. The lack of secondary playmaking further limited his offensive utility.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 16.3m -9.0
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Hesitancy as a primary ball-handler bogged down the offense and led to a heavily negative impact score. Repeatedly picking up his dribble under pressure resulted in stalled possessions and late-clock desperation heaves. The inability to break down the defense off the bounce severely hampered the second unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 16.1m -10.6
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Jevon Carter 15.3m
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Flawless perimeter shooting provided a massive offensive spark off the bench. Punishing defenders who went under screens, he knocked down every look with supreme confidence. This unexpected scoring burst was the sole driver of his highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 137.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +12.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 15.3m -10.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 6.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

A brief, ineffective stint was marred by defensive confusion and a lack of offensive involvement. Consistently out of position on weak-side rotations, he gave up easy driving lanes to cutters. The game simply moved too fast for him during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 6.7m -4.8
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

High-energy rim runs and physical screens generated just enough value to keep his impact positive. He struggled to convert around the basket, rushing a few hook shots in traffic. However, his sheer motor and willingness to do the dirty work inside provided a subtle boost.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -69.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 6.6m -6.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Capitalized on garbage-time minutes with aggressive drives to the basket, though it didn't move the needle on his net impact. Showing good burst in the open floor, he was occasionally lost on defensive assignments. A neutral performance in a low-leverage situation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg -111.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 4.5m -2.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Completely invisible during his short time on the court, failing to register any meaningful positive statistics. Floating around the perimeter on offense without creating separation or threatening the defense rendered him a non-factor. His lack of aggression resulted in empty possessions and a negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 4.2m -2.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Barely broke a sweat in a fleeting appearance at the end of the game. Grabbing a single stray rebound was his only contribution, as he had no opportunity to impact the flow of play. The slightly negative score reflects the opponent scoring during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -116.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 3.2m -1.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Naz Reid 24.1m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Relentless activity in the paint and exceptional defensive rim protection fueled a dominant two-way showing. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor in transition, generating high-value looks that overcame a cold night from beyond the arc. His energy completely flipped the momentum during the second-unit minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.2
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 24.1m -15.8
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kyle Anderson 23.9m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Exceptional defensive positioning and high-IQ rotations drove a massive positive impact on that end of the floor. Operating as a crucial connective tissue in the half-court, he capitalized on timely cuts to punish over-helping defenders. This opportunistic scoring surge perfectly complemented his disruptive off-ball defense.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -49.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 23.9m -16.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Elite perimeter shot-making was entirely negated by defensive lapses and a failure to secure loose balls. Struggling to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack, he allowed dribble penetration that routinely compromised the defensive shell. The scoring punch was undeniable, but the defensive bleed ultimately resulted in a negative bottom line.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 21.1m -12.8
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 19.3m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Impact was muted by poor perimeter execution and a pattern of settling for contested mid-range jumpers. While his length bothered wings defensively, the offensive stagnation and missed deep looks dragged down his net rating. The inability to capitalize on open spot-ups ultimately capped his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 39.6%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 19.3m -10.7
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Joe Ingles 18.3m
7
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

A perfectly neutral net impact reflects a steady, mistake-free stint orchestrating the secondary offense. Veteran pacing allowed him to manipulate pick-and-roll coverages effectively, though low usage prevented him from moving the needle significantly. Solid positional defense kept him from giving anything back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 18.3m -12.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylen Clark 32.9m
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.1

A disastrous offensive outing completely erased the value of his typically disruptive perimeter defense. He short-circuited multiple possessions with ill-advised drives into traffic, failing to read the weak-side help and forcing low-percentage looks. Defensive intensity remained high, but the offensive execution was a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 32.9m -19.7
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
33
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.3

An absolute offensive masterclass propelled his impact score, as he torched defensive closeouts with explosive straight-line drives. Hunting mismatches relentlessly in the half-court, he punished switches with lethal step-back jumpers. The sheer volume and efficiency of his scoring completely masked any minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 99.2%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +29.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.3
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 31.2m -21.2
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.0

Impact plummeted due to a string of forced, low-percentage shots that consistently bailed out the opposing defense. He struggled to find his footing within the offensive flow, often breaking off plays to isolate against set defenders. The resulting empty possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities, compounding the negative effect.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 23.8m -13.8
Impact -15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Inefficient finishing around the basket dragged his overall impact into the red despite excellent work on the glass. He consistently established deep post position but rushed his touch shots against length, squandering high-value opportunities. The hustle metrics were strong, yet the inability to convert inside limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 22.8m -20.2
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Bones Hyland 22.7m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Poor shot selection and forced isolation attempts tanked his offensive value, completely overshadowing surprisingly robust defensive metrics. Settling for contested pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock repeatedly stalled the team's offensive rhythm. While active hands generated deflections, the erratic offensive decision-making proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense -5.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 22.7m -13.9
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5