GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 45.8m
24
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+26.4

An absolute ironman performance defined by relentless two-way activity and elite closeout defense. He generated massive value by attacking the glass and converting broken plays into transition scoring opportunities. His willingness to take tough defensive assignments never wavered despite playing nearly the entire game.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.8m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +11.7
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Poole 41.4m
21
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.3

Incredible hustle metrics were ultimately undone by a highly erratic shot profile and forced isolation attempts. He broke out of his recent scoring slump, but the sheer number of wasted possessions and clanked step-back jumpers dragged his net impact into the red. His defensive effort was respectable, yet it couldn't mask the inefficiency of his offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.4m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Zion Williamson 37.0m
27
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+20.0

Overcame a slightly inefficient finishing night by leveraging his immense gravity to create wide-open looks for teammates. His defensive engagement was surprisingly robust, actively blowing up dribble hand-offs and protecting the weak side. The constant rim pressure forced the defense into foul trouble early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 11/16 (68.8%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +4.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +12.7
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Herbert Jones 28.4m
0
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.9

An uncharacteristically disastrous offensive showing completely tanked his value, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt. The lack of scoring threat allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the post. Even his normally elite point-of-attack defense couldn't salvage the massive hole created by his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring -6.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +7.9
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 27.8m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite perimeter sniping kept the spacing intact, but a lack of secondary hustle plays limited his overall effectiveness. He struggled to stay in front of quicker assignments, allowing dribble penetration that compromised the defensive shell. The low volume of overall touches prevented him from maximizing his hot shooting hand.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 34.8m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided a vital physical presence in the paint, utilizing his size to generate crucial second-chance opportunities. He capitalized on defensive mismatches with decisive post moves rather than settling for contested looks. This highly efficient interior performance perfectly stabilized the second unit during rocky stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Defensive tenacity defined this outing, as he consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions to generate a stellar defensive impact. He was highly selective with his offense, punishing defensive lapses without forcing his own numbers. The sharp drop in scoring volume from his recent average was a calculated shift toward facilitating and locking down the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Flashed moments of off-ball gravity but struggled to find a consistent rhythm against tight perimeter coverage. A few ill-advised closeout attacks resulted in empty trips that slightly outweighed his positive floor spacing. He was ultimately a neutral presence who didn't tilt the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +45.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Logged a brief cameo that consisted mostly of cardio and basic defensive rotations. He wasn't on the floor long enough to deploy his trademark backcourt pressure. A completely forgettable stint that barely registered on the analytical radar.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Devin Vassell 39.8m
23
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

High-volume perimeter shooting yielded diminishing returns, as a heavy diet of contested threes dragged down his overall efficiency. Even with a sharp spike in scoring production compared to recent games, the empty possessions from his missed triples compounded negatively. He failed to generate enough secondary playmaking to offset the inefficient shot profile.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 6/14 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Struggled to find his rhythm from the perimeter, as a barrage of missed threes dragged down his offensive efficiency. Despite the shooting slump, he stayed engaged on the defensive end to generate a strong positive defensive impact. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately capped his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 34.2m
7
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

A passive offensive showing severely limited his overall footprint, as he deferred too often and rarely challenged the defense. While his positional defense remained solid, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. He simply didn't generate enough pressure to yield a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 33.5m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-15.6

Offensive execution fell off a cliff due to erratic decision-making and forced drives into traffic. The resulting negative box impact erased his otherwise commendable hustle and point-of-attack defense. His inability to consistently break down the primary defender stalled the half-court offense for long stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -24.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 10
29
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+26.6

Completely dominated the interior on both ends of the floor, anchoring a massive defensive impact through elite rim deterrence. His shot selection was highly efficient inside the arc, punishing smaller matchups and ignoring his cold perimeter touch. The sheer volume of his two-way playmaking overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 13/23 (56.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +21.5
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +9.1
Defense -1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 9
TO 0
Luke Kornet 34.5m
14
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.9

Masterful execution in the pick-and-roll allowed him to generate high-percentage looks and sustain a highly efficient offensive impact. He consistently won the positioning battle in the paint, converting hustle plays into crucial second-chance opportunities. This marked his third straight game of elite finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +14.3
Defense -2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 25.6m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.1

Poor shot selection plagued his minutes, breaking a five-game streak of efficient shooting with a barrage of forced jumpers. The sheer volume of missed attempts stalled offensive momentum and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. He struggled to find any rhythm against physical perimeter coverage.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided a steadying presence on the glass, but defensive lapses kept his overall impact hovering near neutral. He was highly efficient when attacking downhill, yet his limited minutes and lower usage rate capped his ceiling. Opposing wings frequently exploited his closeouts during key second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +11.7
Defense -4.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Made the most of a brief rotation stint by injecting immediate energy and securing loose balls to boost his hustle metrics. He kept the ball moving without forcing the issue, taking only what the defense gave him. A perfectly fine, low-mistake bridging shift for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.5

Barely registered a footprint during a fleeting appearance, missing his lone perimeter look. He stayed disciplined in his defensive rotations but simply wasn't on the floor long enough to establish any rhythm. The negative grade stems entirely from the empty offensive possession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -120.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0