GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 39.5m
22
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.2

Volume shooting from the perimeter yielded diminishing returns, as clanking multiple triples severely dragged down his offensive efficiency. He salvaged a positive net score by competing hard through screens and generating deflections. The willingness to let it fly was there, but the shot selection was highly questionable.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 39.5m -22.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 35.2m
25
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.3

Bully-ball drives and confident perimeter strokes fueled a massive offensive spike compared to his recent averages. However, heavy footwork on the defensive end allowed blow-bys that bled points back to the opposition. His scoring punch was essential, even if his closeouts left much to be desired.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 35.2m -20.1
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 34.0m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Elite havoc creation and passing lane disruption showcased his usual defensive brilliance. Unfortunately, that value was entirely negated by back-breaking offensive fouls and sloppy transition turnovers. He was a menace defensively but a complete liability with the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 34.0m -19.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 26.1m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.4

Aggressive downhill probing created consistent rim pressure, though he struggled to finish through contact. Solid on-ball defense and active hands kept his overall impact in the green despite the inefficient shooting. A tendency to force contested floaters limited what could have been a breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 26.1m -14.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kevon Looney 8.2m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Struggled to anchor the paint during a brief rotational appearance, looking a step slow on pick-and-roll coverages. A lack of offensive gravity allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. Hustle plays on the glass couldn't overcome his overall sluggishness.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 8.2m -4.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Derik Queen 37.8m
26
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.9

Absolutely dominated the interior with elite footwork and soft touch, obliterating his recent scoring averages. He established deep post position early and often, punishing smaller defenders while maintaining defensive verticality. This was a masterclass in exploiting a favorable frontcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 37.8m -21.3
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.5

Erratic decision-making and forced perimeter shots completely derailed the offensive flow during his minutes. He tried to generate momentum with his typical pest-like defense, but over-gambling led to compromised rotations. The negative impact was driven heavily by empty possessions and defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.7
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 21.9m -12.4
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Maintained his recent streak of efficient finishing, rolling hard to the rim and catching cleanly in traffic. However, poor pick-and-roll positioning defensively allowed guards to turn the corner too easily. The give-and-take between his offensive reliability and defensive softness resulted in a wash.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 14.0m -7.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Micah Peavy 12.4m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided a stabilizing, low-mistake presence on the wing during his second-quarter rotation. Focused entirely on boxing out and making the extra pass rather than forcing his own offense. A quiet but fundamentally sound shift that slightly tilted the floor in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -44.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 12.4m -7.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Flashed his quick trigger from deep, but defensive frailties prevented him from staying on the floor. Opponents immediately targeted him in isolation, forcing the coaching staff to pull him early. His gravity as a shooter was offset by his inability to stay in front of his man.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 8.9m -5.0
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 2.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by executing flawless drop coverage and altering shots at the rim. He didn't touch the ball offensively but made his presence felt as a pure rim deterrent. A highly specialized, defensively potent cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 2.0m -1.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 38.4m
13
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.2

Relentless activity on the glass and elite point-of-attack containment generated massive defensive value. Unfortunately, that gritty two-way effort was completely erased by crippling live-ball turnovers and offensive fouls. He essentially played a perfect defensive game but gave it all back with sloppy decision-making in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +9.3
Defense +6.2
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 38.4m -21.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jrue Holiday 36.5m
17
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
-7.4

Playmaking vision was evident, but the sheer volume of risky passes resulted in costly turnovers that fueled opponent transition breaks. Missing crucial momentum threes further depressed his overall value despite the high assist count. His usual stabilizing presence was undermined by uncharacteristic carelessness with the basketball.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 36.5m -20.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 34.9m
32
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.2

Offensive execution was nearly flawless, finding soft spots in the midrange to generate a massive scoring surge above his baseline. However, defensive lapses on the perimeter and unforced errors kept his overall impact from reaching elite territory. His ability to punish mismatches in isolation defined the performance.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +27.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 34.9m -19.7
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 34.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Shaedon Sharpe 29.8m
35
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.6

Surgical shot-making from all three levels drove a dominant offensive rating. He consistently beat primary defenders off the bounce, creating high-value looks without needing to force the issue. A steady commitment to staying in front of his man rounded out a stellar two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 13/18 (72.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +30.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +38.6
Avg player in 29.8m -17.0
Impact +21.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 27.5m
9
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Rim protection and positional discipline anchored the interior defense effectively. The overall impact sank into the negative due to poor shot selection, specifically settling for above-the-break threes instead of playing to his size. Forcing outside looks short-circuited multiple offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 27.5m -15.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
Kris Murray 22.4m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Solid rebounding numbers masked a highly ineffective floor game marred by poor spacing and off-ball stagnation. He failed to register meaningful defensive stops, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the scheme. The inability to impact the game beyond catching the ball drastically lowered his net score.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 22.4m -12.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 16.8m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

An absolute liability in offensive sets, struggling to read the floor or create advantages. Defensive miscommunications compounded the issue, frequently leaving shooters open on the weak side. Rushed decisions and poor positioning defined a highly detrimental shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.7
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 16.8m -9.6
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Vertical spacing and timely weak-side rotations provided a solid baseline of value. He stayed within his role offensively, converting dump-offs efficiently to maintain his recent hot streak. Minor rotational mistakes likely capped his ceiling, but the minutes were undeniably productive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 16.7m -9.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

A brief, low-energy stint yielded minimal influence on the game's outcome. He struggled to find an offensive rhythm before exiting, failing to generate his usual rim pressure. The lack of aggression rendered him a non-factor during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 7.0m -4.0
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Completely out of sync on both ends, blowing rotations and failing to navigate screens defensively. Forcing bad shots early in the shot clock tanked his offensive value during a brief stint. The game simply looked too fast for him in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.7
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 5.7m -3.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 4.2m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Executed basic pick-and-pop duties adequately during a very short run. Neither helped nor hurt the team's momentum, serving strictly as an innings-eater. A perfectly neutral performance defined by blending into the background.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 4.2m -2.4
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0