GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Derik Queen 32.3m
20
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.4

A massive surge in offensive assertiveness and relentless interior hustle defined his breakout performance. Even with a handful of missed bunnies, his sheer activity level on the block overwhelmed his primary matchup. He anchored several successful defensive stands by walling off the paint and securing tough traffic rebounds.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 32.3m -16.6
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 31.4m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.1

A sharp decline in scoring efficiency and poor decision-making in the pick-and-roll tanked his value. Eight missed shots and stalled offensive initiations negated his solid point-of-attack defense. He struggled to read the drop coverage all night, leading to dead-end possessions and transition opportunities going the other way.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 31.4m -16.1
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Trey Murphy III 30.8m
19
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.0

High-volume inefficiency and ten missed field goals dragged his overall impact deeply into the negative. He settled for heavily contested perimeter looks instead of attacking closeouts, bailing out the defense repeatedly. Despite decent rebounding effort, the wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 30.8m -15.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Saddiq Bey 27.9m
18
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.1

Crashing the offensive glass and finishing through contact in the paint drove a highly productive shift. He smartly abandoned his struggling outside shot to bully smaller defenders in the mid-post. That physical edge and second-chance generation consistently broke the opponent's defensive spirit.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 27.9m -14.3
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Micah Peavy 27.0m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.7

Disastrous offensive execution and poor defensive awareness resulted in a team-worst impact score. He repeatedly short-circuited possessions by forcing wild drives into heavy traffic, likely resulting in costly live-ball turnovers. Opponents ruthlessly attacked his closeouts, exposing his slow lateral slides on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.3
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 27.0m -13.8
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Yves Missi 20.6m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Offensive invisibility kept his net rating slightly below sea level despite strong rim protection metrics. He failed to make himself available as a lob threat, allowing the defense to completely ignore him in the half-court. While he contested shots well, the lack of vertical spacing severely cramped the floor for the guards.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 20.6m -10.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Efficient, opportunistic scoring and high-energy defensive rotations yielded a solid positive impact. He thrived in transition by filling the lanes correctly and finishing decisively at the cup. A disciplined approach to shot selection meant he never hijacked the offense while still making his presence felt.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 20.0m -10.2
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Clanking off-the-dribble jumpers and providing zero resistance on the perimeter cratered his overall score. He failed to leverage screens properly, resulting in smothered looks and disrupted offensive flow. The opponent actively hunted him in isolation, taking advantage of his upright defensive stance.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 19.4m -9.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Despite efficient shooting, defensive lapses and a lack of his trademark disruption led to a negative bottom line. He was uncharacteristically quiet in the passing lanes, allowing the opposing guards to initiate their sets without pressure. Getting caught on multiple ball screens gave up easy dribble penetration that compromised the entire defense.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 16.6m -8.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kevon Looney 14.1m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

A stabilizing, albeit quiet, presence in the middle kept his impact perfectly neutral. He set bone-crushing screens to free up shooters and maintained strict verticality around the basket. It was a classic blue-collar shift that didn't jump off the page but kept the second unit functioning smoothly.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 14.1m -7.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

A steep drop in offensive aggression and poor shot selection resulted in a negative overall showing. He settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock rather than pressuring the rim, stalling the offensive rhythm. While his on-ball defense remained respectable, the empty offensive trips proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 35.6m -18.1
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 34.5m
18
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite strong defensive metrics driven by weak-side rim protection, his overall impact slipped into the red. Nine missed field goals and forced drives into traffic offset the value of his high-level playmaking. A tendency to over-penetrate against set defenses ultimately capped his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 34.5m -17.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
30
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.1

Absolute dominance in the mid-post and as a roll man fueled a massive positive impact rating. He consistently punished switches, shooting at a highly efficient clip while anchoring the paint defensively with timely contests. His ability to draw double teams and still finish cleanly dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +25.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +34.9
Avg player in 33.0m -16.8
Impact +18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 30.8m
14
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.8

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays more than compensated for a clunky shooting night. He generated enormous value by blowing up dribble handoffs and securing loose balls to extend possessions. Even with a broken perimeter jumper, his sheer physical disruption kept his net impact highly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 30.8m -15.7
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Perimeter shooting woes completely dragged down his overall rating, as he bricked all of his attempts from beyond the arc. While his length provided solid rotational defense, the lack of spacing severely hurt the half-court offense. Opponents aggressively sagged off him down the stretch, stalling out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 22.5m -11.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Scorching perimeter efficiency single-handedly drove his positive impact score. He operated perfectly as a floor-spacer, punishing late closeouts with lethal catch-and-shoot execution. The defensive metrics were pedestrian, but the sheer gravity of his outside stroke opened up driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 105.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 27.0m -13.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Low-usage offensive involvement was masked by excellent positional defense and high-motor activity on the glass. He made his mark by consistently boxing out larger assignments and rotating flawlessly on the backline. Surviving his minutes without demanding the ball allowed the primary creators to operate smoothly.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.4
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 26.9m -13.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 23.7m
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

A lack of defensive resistance and minimal hustle contributions sank his net rating. When the outside shot isn't falling at a high volume, his inability to contain dribble penetration becomes glaringly obvious. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches to generate easy paint touches.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 23.7m -12.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 2.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by a blown defensive assignment and a rushed perimeter attempt. He looked out of sync with the pace of the game, failing to register any meaningful positive actions. The coaching staff pulled him quickly after a missed rotation led to an open corner three.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -61.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 2.6m -1.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Maximized a very short leash by executing his exact role as a spot-up threat. Drilling his only look from deep provided a quick offensive jolt without giving anything back on the other end. It was a textbook, mistake-free cameo that slightly bumped up his overall metric.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 2.4m -1.2
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Generated a surprisingly positive rating in garbage time through pure defensive positioning. He deterred a drive at the rim and kept the ball moving offensively without forcing a bad look. A quick, disciplined shift ensured he didn't bleed any value.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 1.0m -0.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0