GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 38.7m
18
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.5

Floor-spacing gravity and elite perimeter containment (+10.1 Def) anchored a highly effective two-way performance. By consistently punishing drop coverage from deep, he forced defensive adjustments that opened up driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.1
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 38.7m -23.3
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Trey Murphy III 38.5m
12
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.7

A brutal -12.7 net rating stemmed from an inability to consistently bend the defense with his perimeter shot. Settling for heavily contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts stalled the offensive flow during his extended minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 38.5m -23.2
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Zion Williamson 32.4m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.2

Getting repeatedly walled off at the rim tanked his usual hyper-efficiency, dragging his total impact into the red (-6.2). Despite generating significant physical pressure, his forced drives into heavy traffic resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition attacks.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 32.4m -19.5
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Jeremiah Fears 26.4m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

A severe regression in shot quality derailed his offensive rhythm and dragged down his overall impact. Struggling to separate from primary defenders, he forced contested mid-range looks that routinely bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -50.9
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 26.4m -15.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 22.8m
10
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.8

Operating as an unexpected offensive hub, his brilliant interior passing picked apart defensive rotations. A sharp uptick in finishing efficiency at the rim kept defenders honest, allowing him to orchestrate a highly positive +3.8 net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 22.8m -13.8
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 65.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Yves Missi 29.4m
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Strong rim deterrence (+5.5 Def) was largely undone by a lack of offensive assertiveness. Being a non-factor in the pick-and-roll allowed the opposition to aggressively trap ball-handlers, resulting in a slightly negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 29.4m -17.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
24
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.3

Catching absolute fire from the perimeter completely inverted the defense and drove a massive +8.3 impact score. This staggering offensive explosion (+445% above average) punished every under-screen coverage and single-handedly swung the momentum of the second half.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 26.6m -16.1
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 21.4m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

An unexpected scoring surge was heavily mitigated by poor perimeter spacing. Missing all his attempts from beyond the arc allowed defenders to pack the paint, resulting in a slightly negative overall footprint despite the raw production.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 21.4m -12.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Lethal off-ball movement generated a barrage of open perimeter looks that instantly supercharged the second unit. By hunting his shot aggressively from deep, he stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point in just 15 minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 15.3m -9.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack erased the value of his highly efficient spot-up shooting. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, turning his minutes into a net negative (-1.8) despite his perfect marksmanship from deep.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 13.5m -8.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
27
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Defensive intimidation anchored his positive impact (+8.0 Def), compensating for a highly inefficient night inside the arc. Forcing the issue in the paint led to a slew of missed contested twos, though his willingness to generate extra possessions through hustle kept his overall rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.0
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 36.1m -21.8
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
17
ast
Impact
-11.0

Being a complete non-threat as a scorer allowed the defense to aggressively play the passing lanes, severely dampening the value of his elite playmaking volume. Even with fantastic point-of-attack defense (+6.0), his reluctance to shoot crippled the team's offensive spacing and drove a steep -11.0 net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +36.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 35.0m -21.1
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S Zach Edey 34.6m
21
pts
15
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.5

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive +10.5 total impact score. By combining highly efficient interior finishing with imposing rim protection, he completely dictated the physical terms of the matchup and overwhelmed opposing bigs.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +52.3
+/- +39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.5
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 34.6m -20.9
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 34.1m
12
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.9

Hidden negatives cratered his overall rating (-9.9) despite respectable defensive metrics. An inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off, bogging down half-court sets and leading to costly empty possessions that killed momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 34.1m -20.6
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jaylen Wells 32.5m
25
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Elite shot selection defined this breakout performance, as he punished defensive rotations with lethal perimeter efficiency. The massive scoring spike (+172% above average) drove a staggering +21.9 box score metric, completely warping the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 105.2%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 32.5m -19.6
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Santi Aldama 24.4m
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Capitalizing on defensive rotations, he provided a highly efficient secondary scoring punch that stabilized the second unit. Strong weak-side defensive rotations perfectly complemented his tidy offensive execution, keeping his impact comfortably positive.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 24.4m -14.7
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Spencer 19.1m
11
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.6

Crisp ball movement and lethal spot-up shooting defined a highly productive stint off the bench. He punished late closeouts with near-perfect perimeter execution, driving a positive impact despite limited floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -47.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 19.1m -11.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 18.1m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

A high-motor approach generated valuable extra possessions (+3.5 Hustle), keeping his overall impact barely in the green. However, a slightly forced shot diet around the basket prevented him from capitalizing fully on those second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -82.3
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 18.1m -10.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

An absolute zero on the offensive end, his inability to knock down open perimeter looks allowed the defense to freely double the post. This lack of gravity completely stalled the half-court offense, resulting in a brutal -8.9 net impact during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -52.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 17.4m -10.5
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 13.7m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Relentless energy defined this short stint, with elite hustle metrics driving a highly positive momentum shift. He perfectly executed the role of an opportunistic cutter, converting broken plays into easy baskets while the defense scrambled.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 13.7m -8.4
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0