GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
7
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

A sharp decline in finishing around the basket snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient performances, dragging his overall impact into the red (-2.9). While his offensive touch abandoned him, he remained highly engaged in the dirty work, posting excellent hustle and defensive metrics. He essentially traded his usual scoring punch for high-level screen setting and rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 31.7m -17.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Desmond Bane 30.8m
15
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.4

Elite point-of-attack defense (+7.5) salvaged an otherwise frustrating night characterized by clanked jumpers. He struggled to find his rhythm against aggressive closeouts, missing a slew of looks he typically buries to drag down his offensive efficiency. Ultimately, his ability to blow up dribble hand-offs kept his overall impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 30.8m -17.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Constant off-ball movement and relocation fueled a massive +13.4 box score impact, even if his overall finishing at the rim was inconsistent. He maintained his recent offensive aggression but left points on the board by rushing through contact in the paint. Solid positional defense ensured his high-volume shooting didn't hurt the team's bottom line.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 30.3m -16.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Franz Wagner 29.9m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.5

Relentless downhill attacking forced the defense into constant rotation, driving a stellar +12.4 box impact despite a mediocre shooting percentage from the floor. He compensated for missed jumpers by living at the charity stripe and generating extra possessions through elite hustle (+5.2). His length on the perimeter completely disrupted the opponent's primary actions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 29.9m -16.8
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 26.2m
23
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+17.8

An absolute two-way masterclass resulted in a towering +17.8 total impact, driven by suffocating perimeter defense and explosive shot-making. He shattered his recent scoring averages by punishing under-screens with lethal accuracy from deep. His off-the-charts hustle metric (+8.7) reflects a relentless motor that generated multiple deflections and fast-break opportunities.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +8.7
Defense +7.7
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 26.2m -14.7
Impact +17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.2

Smothering on-ball pressure defined this performance, yielding an elite +9.2 defensive impact that completely derailed the opponent's backcourt rhythm. He paired this defensive clinic with excellent connective passing and timely cuts to the basket. By avoiding costly turnovers and winning the 50/50 balls, he provided massive value without needing a high usage rate.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.2
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 29.3m -16.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
Goga Bitadze 16.3m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

Maximizing every second of his rotation, a flawless offensive execution led to a massive +11.4 box impact. He obliterated his usual scoring averages by dominating the dunker spot and finishing everything around the rim with authority. His sturdy drop-coverage defense perfectly complemented this sudden, highly efficient scoring burst.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 105.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 16.3m -9.1
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.9

Unprecedented offensive efficiency paired with his standard elite rim protection to create a massive +10.9 overall rating. He didn't waste a single possession, converting every look while operating decisively in the mid-post and transition. His mere presence as a weak-side helper consistently forced opposing guards to abort their drives.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 15.8m -8.9
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jett Howard 15.1m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Lethal floor spacing was the catalyst here, as a perfect shooting night generated a robust +8.0 box score impact in limited action. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by relocating to the corners, punishing the opposition every time they helped off him. This pure catch-and-shoot gravity fundamentally altered the spacing for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 15.1m -8.5
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 5.1m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A complete lack of offensive aggression continues to plague his minutes, extending a scoreless slump and resulting in a negative total impact (-2.7). He operated too passively on the perimeter, failing to bend the defense or create advantages off the dribble. The brief stint ended quickly as the coaching staff opted for more dynamic playmaking.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 5.1m -2.9
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 4.8m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Instant offense in a garbage-time cameo kept his streak of highly efficient shooting nights alive. He generated a quick +3.5 box impact by decisively attacking closeouts rather than settling for contested looks. His active hands ensured the end-of-bench unit maintained the team's overall intensity.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +91.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 4.8m -2.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

A quick trigger from beyond the arc yielded a positive +3.5 box impact during his brief time on the floor. He didn't hesitate when the ball swung his way, providing a textbook example of staying ready on the bench. While his defensive footprint was minimal, his shot-making ensured a net-positive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +91.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Ivica Zubac 31.6m
14
pts
19
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Controlling the interior airspace defined this performance, generating a massive +11.3 box impact through a sheer volume of extra possessions created via the offensive glass. He bounced back from recent efficiency struggles by establishing deep post position early and often. While he missed several close-range bunnies, his defensive rim deterrence ensured a positive overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 31.6m -17.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S James Harden 30.9m
31
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.7

A masterclass in pick-and-roll manipulation fueled a dominant +17.9 box impact. Breaking out of a recent scoring lull, he aggressively hunted his own shot from the perimeter and consistently punished drop coverage with lethal step-backs. His engaged off-ball defense further amplified a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.8%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 30.9m -17.4
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kobe Sanders 26.4m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-19.5

Sanders' usually reliable efficiency vanished, snapping a five-game hot streak with a barrage of forced, contested attempts. The massive negative impact (-19.5) stems from empty offensive possessions and likely live-ball turnovers that fed the opponent's transition game. Despite decent defensive metrics, his inability to generate quality looks completely derailed the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -8.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total -4.7
Avg player in 26.4m -14.8
Impact -19.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S John Collins 24.7m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Anchoring the paint with high-level contests and physical rim protection drove a stellar +6.8 defensive impact. However, his overall rating slipped into the red due to a lack of offensive assertiveness, failing to leverage his ongoing streak of highly efficient shooting nights. He settled into a strictly blue-collar role rather than punishing mismatches on the block.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 24.7m -13.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 24.5m
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Perimeter defensive intensity couldn't salvage a rough overall outing (-7.4) marred by offensive stagnation. He continues to struggle with shot quality during an extended shooting slump, often stalling half-court sets by hesitating on open catch-and-shoot opportunities. The resulting empty trips allowed the defense to pack the paint against the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 24.5m -13.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Chris Paul 23.1m
4
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.4

Uncharacteristic offensive disjointedness defined this shift, likely driven by stalled possessions and late-clock forced attempts that tanked his box impact. While his hands remained active in passing lanes to generate a positive defensive grade, he couldn't dictate the tempo on the other end. The inability to organize the half-court offense resulted in a steep -12.4 overall penalty.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 23.1m -12.9
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.9

A prolonged shooting slump continues to severely limit his floor value, as poor shot selection from the perimeter dragged his overall impact down to -10.9. Defenders are aggressively going under screens, daring him to shoot through his mechanical funk. Without his usual gravity pulling defenders away from the paint, the spacing for the second unit completely collapsed.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 21.2m -11.9
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Brown 15.7m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

An aggressive approach yielded mixed results, as his streak of highly efficient shooting nights was snapped by settling for contested perimeter jumpers. Despite the dip in accuracy, his willingness to attack closeouts still generated a positive +5.9 box impact. However, minor defensive lapses in transition kept his overall score hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 15.7m -8.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Christie 12.0m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Flashes of perimeter shot-making offered a welcome departure from his recent severe shooting woes. Even so, his overall impact (-2.4) suffered due to a lack of physical resistance at the point of attack on defense. He remains a target for isolation sets, giving back the value he creates with his jumper.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 12.0m -6.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Flawless execution as a roll man generated a highly efficient +6.1 box impact during his short rotation. He capitalized on every rim-running opportunity, showing excellent hands in traffic to finish through contact. This opportunistic scoring provided a crucial stabilizing element for the reserve frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -65.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 10.6m -5.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

High-IQ rotational defense highlighted a brief but highly effective stint on the floor. He broke a recent string of poor shooting by capitalizing on his lone perimeter look, providing exactly the kind of low-maintenance floor spacing the bench unit requires. His veteran positioning disrupted multiple driving lanes without gambling.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 8.7m -5.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Limited run prevented him from establishing any real rhythm, resulting in a muted impact score. He operated strictly as a floor spacer during his brief stint, abandoning the interior presence that had driven his recent offensive surge. The quick hook kept him from accumulating any meaningful defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -46.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Garbage time minutes yielded a negative rating (-3.6) due to empty offensive trips and a failure to secure loose balls. He looked rushed during his brief cameo, forcing a bad perimeter look instead of letting the offense flow. The lack of defensive engagement further compounded the brief, ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -91.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0