GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 36.0m
23
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.4

Elite two-way play defined this stellar performance, driven by suffocating perimeter defense and high-volume shot-making. His length consistently disrupted passing lanes all night, directly fueling an astronomical defensive rating. Bombing away from deep stretched the floor to its breaking point, compounding his massive overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +6.6
Defense +15.0
Raw total +35.2
Avg player in 36.0m -20.8
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 3
S Derik Queen 30.4m
30
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.5

An absolute masterclass in interior finishing and defensive anchoring drove a team-high impact score. Relentlessly bullying his primary matchups in the paint allowed him to convert highly efficient looks at the rim. Elite hustle metrics prove he simply outworked everyone on the floor, cementing a massive breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +7.2
Defense +10.8
Raw total +40.0
Avg player in 30.4m -17.5
Impact +22.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Zion Williamson 29.1m
14
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.0

Uncharacteristic inefficiency around the basket severely dragged his net impact into the red. Missing makeable looks in the paint allowed the opponent to leak out early, neutralizing his typical offensive gravity. This steep drop from his usual scoring dominance left the half-court offense stalling during his primary initiation stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 29.1m -16.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Herbert Jones 29.0m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Exceptional hustle plays were ultimately negated by offensive struggles, resulting in a slightly negative net rating. While he generated extra possessions through deflections and loose ball recoveries, bricking open perimeter looks stalled the scoring momentum. Elite defensive utility kept the overall bleeding to a minimum despite his lack of shooting touch.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +6.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 29.0m -16.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jeremiah Fears 25.5m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc entirely capped his overall effectiveness. Forcing up empty triples bailed out the defense and disrupted the offensive rhythm during key secondary stretches. A lack of high-end hustle metrics meant he couldn't offset his perimeter shooting woes with physical grit.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 25.5m -14.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Saddiq Bey 18.9m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

A complete failure to stretch the floor severely tanked his impact rating. Missing every perimeter attempt allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. This massive drop-off from his recent scoring production left a glaring offensive hole in the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -49.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 18.9m -10.8
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Tremendous defensive pressure and hustle were ultimately undone by brutal offensive inefficiency. Blanking from deep meant he was an active liability in the half-court, allowing opponents to trap the primary ball-handlers. His signature backcourt harassment simply couldn't mathematically overcome the wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 18.9m -10.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

A sharp decline in shooting accuracy combined with poor defensive metrics drove a heavy negative score. Failing to convert from deep removed his primary weapon, while a lack of hustle plays offered no secondary value. Getting targeted on defensive switches consistently compounded the damage during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 17.6m -10.1
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 17.1m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Subpar perimeter shooting dragged his net impact slightly into the negative despite a noticeable scoring bump. Bricking open threes allowed the defense to pack the paint and stifle the offense's interior flow. While he found some success inside the arc, the empty outside volume ultimately hurt the team's overall spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 17.1m -9.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 12.3m
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

High-energy rebounding in limited minutes drove a surprisingly strong positive impact score. Relentlessly crashing the glass created valuable second-chance opportunities that swung the momentum in short bursts. Despite minor defensive lapses, his sheer physical presence inside provided a massive spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 12.3m -7.1
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

A brief, ineffective stint yielded a negative rating primarily due to a complete lack of offensive threat. Failing to secure the paint defensively allowed opponents to capitalize on quick interior touches. His inability to generate meaningful screens or putbacks made his short time on the floor a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 5.2m -3.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 35.5m
16
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-16.0

Severe offensive regression and poor shooting efficiency completely cratered his overall impact score. Forcing contested perimeter jumpers stalled the half-court flow and led to negative defensive metrics as opponents capitalized in transition. This steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear left a massive void in the team's primary initiation role.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -2.0
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 35.5m -20.6
Impact -16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Peyton Watson 34.4m
32
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.1

Elite shot-making efficiency drove a massive offensive impact, anchoring his team-high plus-minus. Surging confidence from deep forced defenders to close out hard, which subsequently opened up his driving lanes all night. This hyper-efficient volume combined with steady defensive rotations to yield a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +24.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 34.4m -19.8
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Nikola Jokić 34.4m
28
pts
11
reb
12
ast
Impact
+0.1

A surprisingly muted overall impact score resulted from defensive transition vulnerabilities that gave points right back. The neutral rating suggests his minutes were played to a standstill despite generating high-quality looks for himself and others. While the offensive engine hummed efficiently, a lack of dominant defensive disruption kept his net impact completely flat.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 34.4m -19.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 9
S Cameron Johnson 32.5m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.8

Highly efficient shot conversion was ultimately offset by hidden negative factors, resulting in a slightly negative total impact. Despite converting nearly all his looks, off-ball defensive lapses or subtle spacing issues likely dragged down his net value. A low volume from beyond the arc allowed the defense to pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 32.5m -18.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zeke Nnaji 26.6m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his overall rating despite posting excellent defensive and hustle metrics. Blanking from the field meant his minutes were essentially played four-on-five on one end of the floor. Strong rim contests and loose ball recoveries simply couldn't salvage the damage done by his negative offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 26.6m -15.4
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Bruce Brown 27.0m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.6

Elite defensive metrics and hyper-efficient finishing at the rim fueled a solid positive impact rating. Relentless point-of-attack pressure disrupted opposing guards, which translated directly into transition opportunities. Sustaining his ongoing streak of highly efficient shooting provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +38.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 27.0m -15.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Poor shot selection and bricked perimeter looks drove a heavily negative net rating. Settling for heavily contested triples early in the shot clock consistently disrupted the team's offensive momentum. Minimal physical engagement on the hustle charts meant he provided absolutely no alternative value when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 23.1m -13.3
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Dominant interior efficiency in limited minutes significantly spiked his overall impact score. Punishing mismatches in the post forced the defense to collapse, creating a massive gravitational pull inside the paint. Converting nearly all of his touches maximized his brief floor time and anchored a highly productive offensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 16.0m -9.3
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Generated entirely positive value through sheer effort and defensive positioning without attempting a single shot. High-level hustle metrics indicate he was consistently winning 50/50 balls and executing flawless weak-side rotations. This stint perfectly illustrates how a role player can positively influence a game purely through dirty work and spacing discipline.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 10.5m -6.1
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0