GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 33.3m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Lethal floor-spacing and disciplined closeouts (+7.2 Def) created a highly effective two-way performance. He punished the defense for sagging off, knocking down perimeter looks with machine-like efficiency. His length on the wing consistently disrupted passing lanes, turning defense into early offense.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 33.3m -18.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derik Queen 26.4m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Exceptional motor and loose-ball recovery (+8.7 Hustle) were completely undermined by a brutal lack of touch around the basket. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort but wasted them with forced, off-balance interior attempts. The defensive anchoring (+5.0 Def) kept his overall score from completely collapsing.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +8.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 26.4m -14.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 6
S Herbert Jones 26.2m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.0

Disastrous offensive execution completely tanked his value, as he routinely bricked open looks and stalled half-court sets. Uncharacteristically quiet on the defensive end (+0.7 Def), he failed to provide the lockdown coverage needed to offset his shooting woes. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, severely cramping the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense -8.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 26.2m -14.9
Impact -18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jeremiah Fears 25.4m
24
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

High-volume scoring was entirely negated by defensive lapses (-0.6 Def) and an inability to contain penetration. While he found a rhythm attacking the basket, he gave those points right back by dying on screens. The empty-calorie offensive production masked how often he was targeted on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 25.4m -14.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Yves Missi 21.9m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

High-energy rim running and vertical spacing translated into a solid positive impact. He altered multiple shots at the summit (+5.5 Def) and kept possessions alive with relentless activity (+6.4 Hustle). The performance was defined by his willingness to do the dirty work in the trenches without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +6.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 21.9m -12.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.6

Cold shooting from beyond the arc slightly dragged down an otherwise decent playmaking performance. The inability to stretch the defense allowed opponents to clog the driving lanes, stalling the offense's rhythm. He generated some value through defensive rotations (+2.0 Def), but the missed deep balls ultimately kept him in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 25.4m -14.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Peavy 24.2m
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.6

A massive, unexpected scoring eruption drove his positive impact, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns with decisive cuts. He shattered his recent slump by hunting high-percentage looks rather than settling for contested jumpers. The offensive explosion carried his score despite relatively quiet defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 24.2m -13.7
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

A barrage of missed perimeter shots crippled his offensive value and allowed the opposition to control the tempo. Even his trademark defensive peskiness (+3.8 Hustle) couldn't bridge the gap created by his cold shooting. He routinely forced the issue early in the shot clock, leading to empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 22.8m -12.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Sustained interior efficiency and excellent rim protection (+4.5 Def) highlighted a highly productive shift. He maintained his streak of hyper-efficient shooting by strictly operating within his physical advantages in the paint. Active hands in the passing lanes (+4.8 Hustle) provided a crucial secondary boost to his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 21.8m -12.3
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

A total lack of hustle stats and poor defensive positioning (-1.1 Def) resulted in a noticeably negative stint. He floated through his minutes without making a physical imprint on the game. The passive approach on both ends allowed the opponent to dictate the terms of engagement while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 12.5m -7.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Chet Holmgren 32.8m
26
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite rim deterrence (+7.3 Def) anchored this dominant two-way showing, effectively shutting down the paint for opposing slashers. Offensively, his impeccable shot selection yielded highly efficient interior finishes that doubled his usual scoring output. This performance was defined by his ability to dictate the terms of engagement on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 32.8m -18.6
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
23
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+15.0

Surgical precision in the mid-range and elite defensive anticipation (+7.3 Def) formed the backbone of this highly impactful outing. He didn't need his usual massive scoring volume to control the game, instead leveraging defensive stops into transition opportunities. His steady playmaking consistently collapsed the defense, punishing over-rotations.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +51.6
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +7.3
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 28.9m -16.3
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 28.3m
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.2

Despite providing excellent resistance on the perimeter (+5.5 Def), his overall value tanked due to clunky offensive execution. Settling for heavily contested jumpers dragged down his efficiency and stalled half-court momentum. The defensive hustle simply couldn't compensate for the empty offensive possessions he generated.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 28.3m -16.0
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 27.8m
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

A massive surge in perimeter efficiency drove his positive impact, capitalizing on open looks to shatter his recent scoring slump. His physical point-of-attack defense (+2.3 Def) and active hands (+4.0 Hustle) ensured this offensive spike translated directly to winning basketball. The high-volume outside shooting completely warped the opponent's defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +49.9
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 27.8m -15.8
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+21.1

Masterful defensive positioning (+11.2 Def) and relentless activity on the glass (+6.7 Hustle) fueled a massive overall impact score. He punished the opponent's interior defense with decisive rolls to the rim, breaking out of a quiet scoring stretch. His connective passing from the high post constantly generated high-quality looks for cutters.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +11.2
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 26.8m -15.3
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
Isaiah Joe 26.2m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

A heavy reliance on perimeter isolation plays yielded mixed results, ultimately dragging his net impact into the red. While the outside shooting provided spacing, a lack of defensive resistance (+0.6 Def) allowed opponents to easily recover those points. He struggled to find ways to contribute when chased off the three-point line.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 26.2m -14.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Poor shot selection and forced attempts at the rim severely damaged his offensive efficiency. The sheer volume of missed jumpers allowed the opposition to consistently leak out in transition, neutralizing his modest defensive contributions. He repeatedly drove into traffic without a clear exit strategy.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 25.9m -14.6
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his overall score, as he failed to apply any pressure on the opposing defense. He salvaged some value through hard-nosed screening and defensive positioning (+5.0 Hustle), but it wasn't enough to offset the zero-impact scoring. The inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to freely pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -9.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 18.4m -10.4
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.1

A sudden burst of offensive confidence in limited minutes drove a highly efficient stint. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages to secure easy buckets, providing a much-needed spark off the bench. Solid rotational defense (+3.0 Def) ensured his quick scoring flurry held up on the scoreboard.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 10.6m -6.1
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Operating strictly as a connective piece, his brief appearance resulted in a nearly neutral impact. He avoided costly mistakes but failed to generate any meaningful defensive disruption (+0.6 Def). The stint was defined by safe, conservative play that neither helped nor hurt the overall scheme.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 7.2m -4.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

A completely passive stretch yielded zero tangible hustle or defensive stats, dragging his score negative. He failed to assert himself within the flow of the offense, disappearing entirely from the action. The lack of physical engagement made him a non-factor during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 4.3m -2.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

A quick strike from beyond the arc provided a minor positive bump during a fleeting appearance. He executed his sole offensive opportunity perfectly, though there wasn't enough floor time to generate defensive value. The cameo was entirely defined by that single, confident perimeter release.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0