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

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 36.0m
24
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.1

Exceptional defensive anchoring kept his rating afloat despite a brutal shooting night. He struggled to finish through contact and settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups. However, his ability to clean the defensive glass and contest shots at the rim prevented the poor efficiency from sinking the lineup.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +4.9
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Franz Wagner 34.4m
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Costly turnovers and forced interior attempts dragged his impact into the red despite solid defensive metrics. He repeatedly drove into heavy traffic, resulting in blocked shots and live-ball giveaways that fueled transition run-outs. While his weak-side help defense was sturdy, the offensive inefficiency ultimately outweighed it.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Massive struggles finishing around the basket were salvaged by relentless effort on the offensive glass. He generated numerous second-chance opportunities by out-positioning his matchups in the paint. Sturdy post defense and disciplined closeouts ensured he remained a net positive despite the shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +16.5
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 30.9m
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.4

Defensive lapses and poor spacing negated a highly efficient interior scoring night. He frequently lost his man off the ball, leading to uncontested backdoor cuts and open corner looks. The lack of perimeter volume also allowed the defense to pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tyus Jones 14.4m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.4

Complete offensive paralysis torpedoed his rating during a rough rotation shift. He failed to bend the defense, tossing up contested floaters while struggling to initiate offensive sets against ball pressure. Even a few high-effort loose ball recoveries couldn't mask the damage done by the empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring -3.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Methodical slashing and excellent shot selection yielded a highly efficient offensive showing. He capitalized on defensive rotations by attacking closeouts with purpose and finishing through contact. Steady point-of-attack defense kept his matchup contained, resulting in a solid, low-mistake performance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance severely compromised the team's offensive spacing. He repeatedly bricked wide-open catch-and-shoot looks, allowing his defender to freely roam and double the post. Minimal impact on the defensive end meant there was no safety net to catch his plummeting offensive value.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 17.0m
3
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Elite rim deterrence and dominant defensive rebounding established a physical tone in the paint. He consistently altered shots at the basket without fouling, forcing the opposition into tough mid-range bailouts. A low-usage, high-efficiency offensive approach perfectly complemented his defensive anchoring.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -42.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +8.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Passive offensive play rendered him virtually invisible during his time on the floor. He failed to leverage his shooting gravity, passing up open looks and stalling the ball movement. The lack of aggression on both ends resulted in a steady bleed of value for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Poor decision-making against defensive pressure led to stalled possessions and negative impact. He struggled to navigate screens, frequently getting caught trailing his man and giving up dribble penetration. While he showed flashes of hustle in transition, the half-court execution was severely lacking.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Instant defensive disruption defined this brief but highly impactful cameo. He immediately blew up a pick-and-roll set and contested multiple shots at the rim, completely altering the opponent's offensive rhythm. His sheer length and anticipation created value far exceeding his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 32.1m
21
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.7

Aggressive downhill attacking yielded high offensive volume, though his overall impact was slightly muted by erratic finishing in traffic. He consistently broke down the primary line of defense to create rim pressure. Solid weak-side rotations and rebounding helped offset the possessions wasted on forced floaters.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

High-level execution out of the pick-and-pop anchored his positive rating. He consistently punished switches with decisive interior finishes and disciplined shot selection. Excellent positional rebounding and rim deterrence rounded out a highly efficient two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +7.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Tre Jones 29.0m
13
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.5

Elite defensive disruption and exceptional hustle metrics drove a team-high impact score. He dictated the tempo by hounding ball-handlers at the point of attack, generating deflections that ignited the fast break. His steady decision-making as a primary facilitator ensured high-quality looks without bleeding value through turnovers.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +9.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 21.6m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.8

Offensive invisibility completely tanked his impact rating, as he failed to convert a single shot attempt from the floor. Despite providing marginal defensive resistance, the sheer volume of empty possessions derailed the offense during his minutes. His inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring -5.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 12.4m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.2

A severe regression in shot-making efficiency dragged down his overall rating against physical wing defenders. He struggled to find rhythm, forcing contested looks that fueled opponent transition opportunities. While he stayed active on the hustle charts, defensive lapses and poor spacing negated those extra-effort plays.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.6

Perimeter gravity kept the floor spaced, but a cold night from beyond the arc capped his ceiling. He found alternative ways to contribute by operating effectively as a secondary playmaker in dribble hand-off actions. Disciplined closeouts and positional awareness on defense kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +7.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.5

A drastic turnaround in shot selection and offensive aggression sparked a highly productive outing. He decisively attacked closeouts rather than settling for contested jumpers, maximizing his touches within the flow of the offense. Strong weak-side rim protection further elevated his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 7.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 26.8m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Efficient perimeter scoring was completely neutralized by defensive breakdowns and a lack of secondary playmaking. He capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. The inability to secure loose balls or disrupt passing lanes left his final impact effectively flat.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Smith 16.8m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

Flawless execution as a rim-runner and floor-spacer maximized his limited minutes perfectly. He punished defensive miscommunications by slipping screens for uncontested looks at the basket. Active hands in the passing lanes and verticality at the rim solidified a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Tenacious on-ball defense and timely hustle plays drove an outsized impact in a brief rotation stint. He seamlessly navigated screens to blow up opponent sets on the perimeter. Offensively, he stayed within his role, taking only high-percentage looks at the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

A blink-and-you-miss-it stint offered almost no opportunity to influence the game's trajectory. He logged a single missed perimeter look before heading back to the bench. Defensive positioning was adequate, but the sample size was too small to generate meaningful value.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0