GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.9m
35
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Whenever he touched the ball, decisive off-ball cutting and elite shot selection ensured high-value possessions. He consistently punished closeouts by attacking the rim rather than settling, generating a massive offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 38.9m -21.4
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Saddiq Bey 36.5m
11
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.4

Forcing contested looks in the mid-range severely damaged his offensive efficiency and dragged his net score into the negative. While he remained active on the glass to salvage some value, the sheer volume of empty possessions stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 36.5m -20.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 34.5m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.6

Because defenders aggressively sagged off him to clog the paint, a disastrous perimeter shooting performance completely tanked his overall impact. His usually reliable point-of-attack defense wasn't nearly enough to offset the offensive spacing issues he created.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 34.5m -19.0
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 28.7m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.7

He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm by blowing up set plays before they could even materialize. This suffocating on-ball pressure defined a spectacular two-way performance, yielding an astronomical defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -36.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +17.5
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 28.7m -15.7
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 7
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kevon Looney 10.9m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

During his brief stint, fundamentally sound screen-setting and positional awareness provided a steadying presence. He quietly executed the unglamorous dirty work, sealing off rebounders to secure extra possessions for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 10.9m -6.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 29.4m
9
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.7

Clogged driving lanes and poor spatial awareness on the offensive end led to a deeply negative overall impact. Despite showing flashes of effort on loose balls, an inability to finish through contact consistently killed promising possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 29.4m -16.2
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

While his signature energy generated a few highlight steals, over-aggressiveness in the passing lanes led to blown coverages that compromised the team's defensive shell. The resulting rotational breakdowns ultimately gave back more value than he created.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 21.4m -11.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

A glaring lack of rim deterrence allowed opponents to score at will during his minutes, erasing his modest offensive contributions. Failing to anchor the paint against driving guards resulted in a negative stint despite flawless shooting.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +36.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 13.0m -7.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Yves Missi 10.3m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Without the threat of rim-running or scoring, defenders freely doubled off him to disrupt the primary ball-handlers. This complete offensive passivity rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor, severely limiting his utility.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 10.3m -5.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

In mismatch situations, opponents actively hunted him to force the defense into scramble mode. An inability to navigate off-ball screens left him a step behind defensively, dragging down his overall impact in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +54.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 9.2m -5.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Looking entirely out of sync with the defensive scheme, he was routinely caught ball-watching on back-door cuts. This brutal stint, characterized by blown assignments and rushed offensive decisions, quickly cratered his net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 7.3m -3.9
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 40.2m
24
pts
7
reb
12
ast
Impact
+9.6

Even on a night where his own jumper wasn't falling, masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages drove a stellar overall rating. Surprisingly, it was his elite positional defense and active hands in passing lanes that anchored the team's success during critical stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 9/13 (69.2%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +12.6
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 40.2m -22.0
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Austin Reaves 38.9m
31
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.5

Relentless downhill attacking generated high-quality offensive possessions and forced the defense into constant rotation. His exceptional hustle metrics reflect a willingness to chase loose balls and extend plays, acting as the primary engine for the team's transition success.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +6.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 38.9m -21.4
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Deandre Ayton 35.6m
20
pts
16
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

By establishing deep post position early and often, he punished drop coverage with near-perfect interior finishing. This absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive positive net score, as his rebounding consistently ended opponent possessions without requiring extra rotations.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.9%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +46.0
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.1
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 35.6m -19.5
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Rui Hachimura 35.1m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Despite scoring efficiently when his number was called, his overall impact cratered due to sluggish weak-side defensive rotations. A distinct lack of secondary hustle plays allowed opponents to capitalize on second-chance opportunities, negating his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 35.1m -19.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 34.4m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

Perimeter shot selection completely derailed his overall impact, as he repeatedly settled for contested looks from deep. While his point-of-attack defense remained highly disruptive to keep his defensive metrics positive, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 34.4m -18.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jake LaRavia 21.7m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.7

Coming off the bench with a high-motor mentality completely shifted the game's momentum. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and fought through screens, proving that low-usage players can still dictate the terms of engagement through sheer hustle.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +6.5
Defense +11.8
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 21.7m -11.9
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
Jaxson Hayes 12.4m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Failing to establish vertical spacing severely limited his offensive utility, leading to a sharp drop-off from his usual production. Furthermore, he was frequently caught out of position on pick-and-roll coverages, allowing easy pocket passes that neutralized his rim protection.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -73.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 12.4m -6.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

His disruptive perimeter length generated a positive defensive impact during limited minutes. Even with a clunky offensive showing, an innate ability to navigate screens and contest late-clock jumpers provided crucial stops.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -74.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 11.3m -6.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Opposing guards targeted him aggressively in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness and bleeding points on the defensive end. A complete lack of secondary effort plays resulted in a flatline hustle score that further dragged down his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 10.4m -5.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0