GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 31.1m
20
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Posted stellar defensive metrics (+8.0 Def) by utilizing his length to disrupt the perimeter, yet his overall impact slipped into the red. This disconnect points to costly hidden errors on offense, likely poorly timed turnovers or stalled possessions. His defensive brilliance was essentially neutralized by a lack of offensive fluidity.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +8.0
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 31.1m -17.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Saddiq Bey 28.8m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite engaging physically on defense (+6.6 Def) and crashing the glass, his overall score suffered from a notable dip in offensive production. He forced several heavily contested shots that led to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. The effort was there, but the shot selection actively harmed the team's offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 28.8m -16.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Herbert Jones 28.7m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Generated massive value through relentless hustle (+8.4) and elite point-of-attack defense, but his offensive struggles were too severe to overcome. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which destroyed the team's spacing and bogged down the half-court offense. His defensive masterclass was overshadowed by his offensive limitations in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +8.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 28.7m -16.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 25.1m
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Racked up counting stats through sheer volume, but underlying inefficiencies dragged his net impact into the negative. He likely surrendered too many straight-line drives on defense, negating his own scoring output. A classic case of empty calories where the offensive production masked poor structural play.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 25.1m -14.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Derik Queen 24.6m
9
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.8

Operated as an excellent offensive hub, using his vision to pick apart the defense from the high post. He paired this playmaking with sturdy interior defense (+5.4 Def), refusing to yield deep post position. A highly effective, balanced performance that kept the offense humming without sacrificing defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 24.6m -13.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
18
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

An explosive scoring surge completely masked a disastrous overall floor game (-6.5 Total). A shocking lack of his trademark hustle (+0.0) suggests he was repeatedly beaten in transition and failed to generate his usual backcourt pressure. He got his points, but gave up significantly more on the other end through poor defensive discipline.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 25.2m -14.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Yves Missi 24.8m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Dominated the interior with a relentless blend of rim-running and shot-altering defense (+6.3 Def). His constant motor (+4.0 Hustle) created second-chance opportunities and wore down the opposing frontcourt. A breakout performance defined by vertical spacing and sheer physical imposition.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 24.8m -14.0
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Sacrificed his own offensive touches to anchor the defense, providing elite rim protection (+6.2 Def) during his minutes. He consistently made the right reads as a screener and kept the ball moving. His positive impact was driven entirely by doing the dirty work and securing the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 20.0m -11.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

A cold shooting night severely limited his usefulness, as his primary value relies on perimeter gravity. Without his shot falling, his lack of defensive resistance (+0.2 Def) became a glaring liability. Opponents actively hunted him in switches, turning his minutes into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Provided a steadying presence off the bench by taking what the defense gave him and avoiding costly mistakes. His focused on-ball defense (+3.0 Def) prevented dribble penetration and kept the defensive shell intact. A quiet but highly effective stint defined by fundamental execution.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 12.6m -7.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Looked completely out of sync during a brief rotation, failing to register any meaningful hustle or offensive stats. He was caught ball-watching on several defensive possessions, leading to easy backdoor cuts. His inability to impact the game physically resulted in a quick hook to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 33.1m
32
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+24.8

An absolutely dominant two-way showcase where his perimeter shot-making stretched the defense to its breaking point. He paired his offensive explosion with elite hustle (+7.3) and suffocating point-of-attack defense (+10.8 Def). This was a complete performance defined by relentless energy and lethal execution.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 8/12 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +7.3
Defense +10.8
Raw total +43.3
Avg player in 33.1m -18.5
Impact +24.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+2.3

Masterful orchestration fueled a strong positive impact, with his defensive anticipation (+6.0 Def) disrupting passing lanes all night. He manipulated matchups perfectly in the half-court, generating high-quality looks for teammates without forcing his own offense. The total score reflects a highly efficient, two-way floor-general performance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.2%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 31.2m -17.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 6
S Stephen Curry 28.1m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.1

Impact plummeted to a massive negative due to uncharacteristically poor shot selection and an inability to find a rhythm. While he contributed marginally in hustle categories, the sheer volume of missed perimeter jumpers fueled opponent fast breaks. The offense completely stagnated during his minutes as he failed to draw his usual defensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 28.1m -15.8
Impact -16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Draymond Green 24.8m
8
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

Elite defensive metrics and high-level hustle plays (+6.4) were completely undone by poor shot selection. He forced too many contested looks around the rim, leading to empty possessions that stalled the offense. His impact score ultimately suffered because the defensive stops couldn't compensate for the offensive dead ends.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +6.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 24.8m -13.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Will Richard 22.2m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

A complete lack of hustle metrics suggests he was a step slow in transition defense, bleeding points the other way. The offensive volume couldn't mask the negative defensive rotations, dragging his overall impact deeply into the red. Despite a notable scoring surge well above his recent baseline, hidden floor-game costs ruined his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +7.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 22.2m -12.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Carried a heavy offensive load with efficient scoring, but gave a lot of it back on the other end of the floor. A glaring lack of hustle plays (+0.2) and minimal defensive resistance allowed opponents to easily match his production. His scoring volume was essential, yet the overall impact was muted by poor transition tracking.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 25.8m -14.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Al Horford 20.2m
6
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.9

Anchored the frontcourt with textbook positional defense (+5.2 Def) and timely floor-spacing. His impact remained firmly positive because he rarely made mistakes, executing dribble hand-offs flawlessly and contesting shots without fouling. A steadying veteran presence that kept the second unit's execution crisp.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 20.2m -11.4
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Buddy Hield 19.9m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Breaking out of a severe shooting slump, his perimeter gravity completely opened up the half-court offense. Surprisingly, it was his off-ball defensive rotations (+7.5 Def) that cemented his high positive impact. He stayed attached to shooters and avoided the lazy fouls that usually plague his defensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 19.9m -11.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A complete offensive disappearing act tanked his overall impact despite solid on-ball defensive pressure (+3.6 Def). He was entirely ignored by the opposing defense, which clogged the paint and stalled the team's spacing. The lack of any scoring threat rendered his defensive contributions moot in the broader flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 12.1m -6.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Quinten Post 10.2m
4
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Struggled to establish deep post position, settling for low-percentage looks that dragged down his offensive efficiency. While he offered some rim deterrence (+2.0 Def), his inability to finish plays inside allowed the defense to leak out early. The negative overall score reflects a stint where he was largely a non-factor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 10.2m -5.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely registered an impact during his brief stint, offering zero resistance defensively or energy on the glass. His perfect shooting was offset by a complete lack of off-ball movement. He essentially existed as a placeholder on the court, neither helping nor actively hurting the flow.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 4.7m -2.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gui Santos 4.7m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A sharp regression from his recent hot streak, marked by tentative decision-making and poor defensive closeouts (-1.1 Def). He was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points during his short time on the floor. The lack of hustle metrics highlights a lethargic performance that actively hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 4.7m -2.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Maximized a very brief appearance by rolling hard to the rim and finishing efficiently. Despite a slight negative grade on defense, his offensive vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse, creating immediate value. A hyper-efficient burst of energy that swung the momentum in just three minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 3.0m -1.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0