GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 37.2m
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Lethal catch-and-shoot gravity warped the opposing defense, constantly opening up driving lanes for his teammates. He paired that perimeter threat with disciplined closeouts on the other end, resulting in a sturdy two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 37.2m -20.1
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 35.9m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Elite point-of-attack disruption and passing-lane gambles generated strong defensive metrics, but his overall impact was dragged down by clunky offensive execution. Stagnant off-ball movement and spacing issues allowed the defense to sag off him, stalling out half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 35.9m -19.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jordan Poole 27.0m
11
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.4

Horrific shot selection completely derailed the offensive flow, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of wasted possessions and long rebounds triggered opponent transition opportunities, burying his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 27.0m -14.6
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jeremiah Fears 17.4m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Relentless downhill pressure forced the defense into rotation, compensating for a slightly inefficient shooting night. He navigated screens beautifully on the defensive end, blowing up dribble hand-offs to stifle opponent momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -49.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 17.4m -9.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevon Looney 15.0m
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Bricking multiple bunnies around the rim severely stunted the offense during his minutes. While he held his ground in post-up defensive situations, his inability to finish through contact or threaten the defense as a roller made him a significant net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -75.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 15.0m -8.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.1

Absolute chaos creation defined this masterclass, utilizing backcourt pressure and passing-lane jumps to generate a massive +7.0 hustle rating. He capitalized on the resulting transition scrambles by knocking down open trail threes, completely tilting the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +7.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 30.6m -16.6
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Saddiq Bey 26.8m
17
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Red-hot perimeter shooting provided a massive offensive lift, but defensive lapses at the point of attack gave almost all of that value right back. Opposing wings consistently beat him off the dribble, neutralizing his highly efficient scoring output.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 26.8m -14.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 18.0m
12
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.9

Operated as an elite offensive hub from the high post, picking apart back-cuts and cutters with pinpoint passing. Combined with suffocating interior defense and flawless defensive rebounding, he completely dominated his matchup on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +9.5
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 18.0m -9.7
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Struggled to find any rhythm coming off screens, rushing his mechanics and misfiring on his perimeter looks. His lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to cheat into the driving lanes, stalling the second unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 17.0m -9.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

Elite rim-running and decisive finishing in the pick-and-roll punished the defense every time they trapped the ball handler. He optimized his minutes by securing the defensive glass and avoiding the cheap fouls that often limit his aggression.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 15.1m -8.2
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 37.0m
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

A heavy diet of contested jumpers torpedoed his efficiency, as he misfired repeatedly from beyond the arc. His defensive rotations and weak-side help kept him afloat on that end, but the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions resulted in a neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 37.0m -19.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 32.4m
20
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Despite strong offensive volume, his overall impact slipped into the red due to erratic perimeter shot selection and a high volume of misses from deep. Poor transition defense and likely unforced errors dragged down his net rating, completely negating his solid work on the glass.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 32.4m -17.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sion James 31.3m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

Offensive invisibility severely handicapped his stint on the floor, failing to bend the defense or create advantages on the perimeter. While he showed flashes of disruptive point-of-attack defense, his inability to space the floor allowed opponents to freely pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 31.3m -16.9
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Absolute interior dominance defined his minutes, anchoring the paint with textbook verticality to generate a massive +8.2 defensive impact. He never forced a bad look offensively, capitalizing purely on dump-offs and putbacks to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +5.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 30.1m -16.3
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
S Collin Sexton 29.6m
17
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.2

Tunnel vision on drives led to a slew of empty possessions and live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. His lack of rebounding presence from the guard spot further compounded the negative swing, completely overshadowing his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 29.6m -16.0
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Tre Mann 24.4m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Sizzling isolation scoring masked underlying issues with ball security and defensive positioning. Opponents routinely targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding away the value of his highly efficient shot-making.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 24.4m -13.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

Disciplined rim protection and timely weak-side rotations drove a highly effective defensive stint. He played perfectly within his role, setting bruising screens and avoiding the costly fouls that often plague young bigs.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 17.9m -9.7
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
KJ Simpson 13.3m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Provided a brief offensive spark with decisive drives, but gave it right back through poor screen navigation on the defensive end. His inability to stay in front of his assignment at the point of attack kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 13.3m -7.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

A complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a liability, as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter to double-team ball handlers. Sluggish closeouts and zero hustle plays further tanked his impact during a highly ineffective rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 13.0m -7.0
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Operated strictly as a floor-spacer and connector during his brief run, making quick decisions to keep the offense flowing. Solid positional rebounding and veteran defensive awareness kept him from being a negative, though he rarely tilted the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 11.0m -5.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0