GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Franz Wagner 36.4m
19
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.6

Elite defensive positioning and timely weak-side rotations drove a massive positive rating. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, utilizing patient drives to compromise the defense without forcing bad shots. A dominant two-way stretch in the third quarter completely flipped the game's momentum in Orlando's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 36.4m -19.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 34.8m
28
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Bullying smaller defenders in the mid-post generated high-quality looks and stabilized the offense during chaotic stretches. While his scoring efficiency was excellent, occasional lapses in transition defense kept his overall impact from reaching elite tiers. He consistently drew double-teams, creating a ripple effect of open perimeter looks for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 34.8m -18.7
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 33.2m
22
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.7

Cold perimeter shooting and defensive miscommunications dragged his overall impact into the red despite high usage. He repeatedly got caught dying on screens, forcing teammates into disadvantageous rotation scenarios. A relentless effort to attack closeouts masked some of the damage caused by his outside bricklaying.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense -1.3
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 33.2m -17.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Anthony Black 32.4m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.3

Offensive stagnation and poor shot selection resulted in a catastrophic net negative rating. Defenders routinely went under his screens, daring him to shoot and completely bogging down Orlando's half-court flow. Despite showing flashes of active hands on defense, his inability to initiate productive sets was a glaring liability.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 32.4m -17.4
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.8

Dominated the interior with bruising screens and highly efficient finishing through contact. His ability to seal off his man early in the shot clock created easy entry passes and high-percentage conversions. Steady positional defense against pick-and-rolls rounded out a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 29.7m -15.9
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
Jett Howard 19.1m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Forcing heavily contested shots early in the clock severely damaged his offensive value. His inability to shake loose from off-ball face-guarding rendered him largely invisible in half-court sets. While he showed decent effort fighting through screens, the lack of scoring punch made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 19.1m -10.3
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 17.8m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.9

Transformed the game entirely through elite rim deterrence and relentless activity on the offensive glass. He completely shut down the paint during his second-half stint, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Generating extra possessions through pure physical hustle far outweighed his minimal scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 17.8m -9.4
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc severely handicapped the floor spacing for the second unit. He hesitated on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to reset and smother the driving lanes. His minimal impact on the glass further compounded a highly ineffective outing.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 17.2m -9.2
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.8

Wreaked absolute havoc as a free safety on defense, blowing up multiple actions with his elite length and anticipation. His ability to seamlessly switch across four positions completely stalled the opponent's primary offensive sets. Chipping in with timely cuts to the basket perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 13.7m -7.4
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 5.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Failed to establish any offensive rhythm during a brief, ineffective rotational stint. He struggled to navigate aggressive ball pressure, resulting in stalled possessions and poor spacing. The lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack further accelerated his negative grade.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 5.5m -2.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jrue Holiday 35.6m
13
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.3

Suffocating point-of-attack defense generated immense value, but clunky offensive execution kept him just below breaking even. He settled for contested mid-range jumpers late in the shot clock instead of initiating downhill penetration. His ability to navigate screens against elite ball-handlers was the only thing preventing a steeper negative grade.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.7
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 35.6m -19.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 35.1m
27
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.7

Maintained a positive overall impact by spacing the floor effectively from the perimeter, though inefficient finishing inside the arc dragged down his ceiling. His active hands generated crucial transition opportunities during Portland's mid-game runs. The scoring volume was necessary, but forced attempts in traffic limited his defensive energy.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 35.1m -18.7
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 33.9m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Elite hustle metrics and switchable defense kept him on the floor, but a severe drop in offensive efficiency tanked his overall value. Brick after brick from the perimeter allowed the defense to sag off him and clog the driving lanes. His relentless pursuit of loose balls in the third quarter partially salvaged an otherwise brutal shooting night.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +8.3
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 33.9m -18.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 29.3m
2
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Anchored the interior with imposing rim protection, yet his inability to finish easy looks around the basket resulted in a net negative impact. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, blowing up Portland's pick-and-roll spacing. A string of missed putbacks in the first half negated the extra possessions he created through sheer physical effort.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 29.3m -15.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Shaedon Sharpe 28.7m
31
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Offensive brilliance drove his massive positive score, as he consistently punished drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers. While his defensive metrics were pedestrian, the sheer efficiency of his shot profile overwhelmed the opposition. A dominant isolation stretch in the fourth quarter cemented his status as the primary offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 28.7m -15.4
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jerami Grant 30.8m
17
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.6

A disastrous defensive showing combined with forced, contested jumpers led to a team-worst impact crater. He routinely lost his man off the ball, bleeding points on backdoor cuts and late rotations. The heavy reliance on isolation sets bogged down the offensive flow and fed directly into opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.9
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 30.8m -16.5
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kris Murray 18.6m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Struggled to find any rhythm in limited action, with hesitant decision-making stalling the secondary unit's momentum. He provided solid positional defense and fought hard through screens, but his offensive invisibility made him a liability. Passing up open catch-and-shoot looks allowed the defense to aggressively double the ball-handler.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 18.6m -9.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Maximized his short stint with flawless rim-running and vertical spacing that collapsed the opposing defense. His presence as a lob threat opened up massive driving lanes for the guards during the second quarter. Quality rim deterrence further boosted his score, proving highly effective despite a low-minute workload.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 14.4m -7.6
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Sparked the bench with immediate hustle and decisive offensive reads during a quick rotational burst. Capitalizing on his lone perimeter look forced defenders to respect his spacing, amplifying his off-ball gravity. He gave back a little value by missing a few weak-side rotations, but the energy shift was palpable.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 9.8m -5.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 3.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Bleeding points in drop coverage during a brief cameo quickly sank his overall rating. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his lack of lateral quickness in pick-and-roll actions. He failed to register any meaningful offensive stats, making him a pure defensive liability in his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.3
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0