GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 36.1m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

Settling for contested, early-clock perimeter shots short-circuited several promising offensive runs. While his length was highly disruptive in passing lanes and fueled transition breaks, the sheer volume of low-percentage attempts dragged down his net efficiency. The defensive activity was excellent, but poor shot selection ultimately cost his team critical momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 36.1m -22.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 34.5m
20
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.6

Physicality on the glass and stout post defense against bigger wings formed the backbone of his positive rating. He consistently punished late closeouts by attacking the seams, though a few forced mid-range jumpers kept his overall impact from soaring higher. Ultimately, his ability to secure heavily contested defensive boards neutralized the opponent's second-chance threats.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.2
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 34.5m -21.3
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 29.6m
29
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.1

Unstoppable downhill momentum collapsed the defense on nearly every touch, generating high-percentage looks at the rim and triggering constant defensive rotations. He paired this offensive dominance with surprisingly active weak-side help, blowing up multiple lob attempts at the apex. By dictating the physical terms of engagement in the paint, he thoroughly controlled the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 13/16 (81.2%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 29.6m -18.2
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 24.3m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Over-dribbling against set defenses led to stalled possessions and late-clock bail-out attempts. He showed flashes of brilliant burst when attacking tilted floors, yet struggled to read the secondary help defenders when operating in the half-court. These processing delays allowed the defense to recover, neutralizing his raw scoring output.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 24.3m -14.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 16.9m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

Operating primarily from the elbows, his decisive dribble hand-offs created quality separation for the guards. However, a tendency to rush his own looks in the painted area resulted in empty possessions that flattened his overall value. He stabilized the second unit's structure but lacked the finishing touch to truly elevate the group.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 16.9m -10.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.5

Relentless backcourt harassment and signature blind-side steals injected pure chaos into the opponent's offensive flow. Unfortunately, a barrage of clanked perimeter looks prevented him from fully capitalizing on the extra possessions he generated. His sheer willpower and defensive motor kept him in the green, overcoming a truly frigid shooting night.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 31.9m -19.7
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Yves Missi 29.2m
14
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.1

Dominating the interior with elite vertical spacing, he served as an unstoppable lob threat that warped the entire defensive shell. He paired this rim-running gravity with disciplined drop coverage, consistently altering shots without committing fouls. By monopolizing the glass and finishing with authority, he anchored the team's most dominant stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.9
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 29.2m -17.8
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
Micah Peavy 19.8m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.1

An absolute masterclass in point-of-attack defense completely derailed the opponent's primary actions. He navigated screens flawlessly and applied suffocating ball pressure, forcing a string of rushed decisions and shot-clock violations. This defensive dominance, paired with timely baseline cuts, resulted in a massive swing in the team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +10.3
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 19.8m -12.3
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Capitalizing on defensive miscommunications, he found soft spots in the zone to convert high-value interior touches. He rarely forced the issue, keeping the ball moving when his primary driving lanes were cut off. This steady, mistake-free approach provided a calming, albeit low-ceiling, presence for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 17.5m -10.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Coby White 35.3m
24
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.6

High-volume perimeter misfires severely undercut the value of his aggressive point-of-attack defense. Even though he scrambled well in recovery and generated deflections, his insistence on forcing heavily contested pull-up threes wasted multiple crucial possessions. The raw scoring output ultimately masked a highly inefficient floor game that consistently gave momentum back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 35.3m -21.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Josh Giddey 35.0m
21
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.2

Pounding the ball into traffic and forcing risky interior passes resulted in live-ball turnovers that bled points the other way. He found some success stepping into open perimeter looks, but his inability to keep speedy guards in front of him compromised the defensive shell. The steep negative impact stems directly from these costly transition-starting mistakes and rotational breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 35.0m -21.5
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ayo Dosunmu 32.2m
28
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Relentless rim pressure and high-value shot selection fueled an offensive surge that far exceeded his recent baseline. His active hands in passing lanes generated consistent transition opportunities, which is reflected in his strong hustle metrics. Despite minor defensive lapses that kept his overall ceiling in check, his aggressive downhill attacks successfully dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 32.2m -19.7
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.0

Brutal shot selection and a string of clanked perimeter looks completely stalled the offense during his shifts. He settled for contested jumpers instead of leveraging his physical tools inside, leading to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. This perimeter passivity is the primary culprit behind a disastrous overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 27.4m -16.9
Impact -15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 21.2m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

A stark drop in offensive assertiveness led to stagnant half-court sets whenever he was on the floor. While he provided adequate weak-side rim protection, his hesitancy to attack closeouts allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint. The resulting negative impact score highlights how much his lack of spacing derailed the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -47.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 21.2m -13.0
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Tre Jones 27.6m
10
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
0.0

Elite connective passing and constant off-ball movement kept the offense humming, but his physical limitations on the other end erased those gains. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, easily shooting over his contests to generate clean looks. Consequently, his masterful orchestration of the half-court offense was perfectly neutralized by the points he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 27.6m -17.0
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Smith 26.4m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Despite converting his touches at a highly efficient clip, his struggles to anchor the drop coverage allowed a parade of uncontested floaters. He frequently bit on pump fakes, compromising his rebounding position and gifting second-chance opportunities to the opposition. This lack of defensive discipline turned what looked like an efficient outing into a net negative for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 26.4m -16.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jevon Carter 18.1m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Tenacious ball pressure completely disrupted the opponent's initiation, burning crucial seconds off the shot clock on multiple trips. His willingness to dive for loose balls and fight through screens set a physical tone that the rest of the bench fed off. Hitting timely perimeter shots off drive-and-kicks was just the icing on a gritty, momentum-shifting performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 18.1m -11.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Flawless execution in limited minutes provided a noticeable spark to the secondary unit. He stayed perfectly disciplined in his defensive slides, cutting off baseline drives and forcing difficult kick-outs. By capitalizing on every offensive touch without forcing the issue, he delivered a highly efficient two-way stint.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 14.6m -8.9
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brief cameo was marred by rushed offensive decisions and forced attempts in heavy traffic. While he showed decent lateral quickness on a couple of defensive switches, the empty offensive trips dragged his overall rating into the red. He simply didn't have enough runway to settle into the game's rhythm before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -120.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 2.1m -1.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0