GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 34.5m
37
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.7

An absolute masterclass in shot creation and efficiency propelled his impact score into the stratosphere. He hunted mismatches ruthlessly, converting tough looks at an unsustainable clip to shatter his recent scoring averages. Active hands on defense and consistent hustle plays ensured he was dominating every square inch of the floor.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.4%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +34.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +42.0
Avg player in 34.5m -20.3
Impact +21.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Franz Wagner 32.3m
25
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Relentless rim pressure and elite finishing inside the arc fueled a massive bounce-back performance. He supplemented his scoring with highly disruptive defense, consistently blowing up opponent actions on the wing. While his deep ball wasn't falling, his sheer downhill aggression dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 32.3m -19.1
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.5

Supreme efficiency in the pick-and-roll and stout rim protection resulted in a dominant two-way showing. He refused to waste possessions, taking only high-value looks to extend his streak of hyper-efficient shooting nights. His ability to anchor the paint defensively while serving as a reliable offensive hub drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.1
Raw total +29.4
Avg player in 30.3m -17.9
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 30.0m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

Horrific shot selection from beyond the arc nearly derailed his night, dragging his box impact into the negative. However, he salvaged his overall value by playing absolute lockdown defense and generating elite hustle plays. His relentless point-of-attack pressure partially neutralized the damage done by his bricked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +11.6
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 30.0m -17.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 4
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.4

An uncharacteristic offensive disappearing act completely tanked his overall rating. Despite generating solid hustle metrics and staying engaged defensively, his bricked perimeter shots continually stalled the momentum. The stark drop-off from his normally steady scoring output created a massive void in the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 20.8m -12.2
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
22
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Slashing to the rim with purpose, he generated a stellar box impact by consistently collapsing the defense. His length bothered ball-handlers all night, leading to a strong defensive rating that bolstered his overall score. He managed the game beautifully, blending aggressive downhill drives with timely perimeter contests.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.9
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 33.8m -20.0
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Tyus Jones 18.7m
0
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.1

A complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes, severely limiting his playmaking effectiveness. While he wasn't a liability on defense, his inability to bend the defense offensively resulted in a stagnant unit. The ongoing shooting slump has turned him into an offensive zero, dragging down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 18.7m -11.0
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 17.7m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.0

A towering presence in the paint, his elite rim deterrence completely shut down the opponent's interior attack during his shifts. He capitalized on dump-off passes with high-percentage finishes, doubling his usual offensive output. It was a masterclass in low-usage, high-impact backup center minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +10.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 17.7m -10.5
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
Noah Penda 11.1m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Flashing unexpected offensive competence, he knocked down timely shots to easily surpass his dismal recent averages. However, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses and an inability to secure stops. The scoring burst was a nice surprise, but it was undone by yielding easy points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 11.1m -6.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Limited minutes prevented him from finding any sort of offensive rhythm, resulting in a negative box impact. He still managed to showcase his trademark defensive instincts in a brief window, altering shots around the basket. Ultimately, the lack of offensive involvement kept him stuck in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 7.3m -4.3
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A fleeting appearance yielded nothing but empty possessions and missed looks. He failed to register any hustle stats or defensive disruption to justify his time on the floor. The sharp drop in efficiency from his recent outings relegated him to a pure negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -45.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Ayo Dosunmu 36.7m
18
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.3

Despite a pure perimeter stroke, his overall impact cratered due to costly hidden mistakes and potential live-ball turnovers. The hustle metrics were undeniably strong, but they couldn't mask the structural defensive bleeding during his shifts. He scored effectively, yet the team lost his minutes heavily.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +5.3
Defense +1.8
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 36.7m -21.7
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Matas Buzelis 35.6m
21
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.8

Elite defensive instincts and high-motor hustle plays drove a massive positive impact score. Despite somewhat streaky perimeter shooting, his ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots anchored the team's defensive rating. He continues to elevate his overall aggression to build on his recent scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +10.7
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 35.6m -21.1
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
S Josh Giddey 35.6m
22
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.7

A massive spike in scoring aggression masked the underlying issues that dragged his net impact into the red. Elite defensive metrics suggest he was highly active on that end, meaning the negative total likely stems from sloppy turnovers or poor transition execution. His shot selection improved drastically from his recent slump, but the hidden mistakes proved costly.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.8
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 35.6m -21.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 8
20
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.0

Surgical interior finishing and excellent shot selection fueled a dominant box impact. He consistently punished mismatches in the paint without forcing bad looks from deep. Solid positional defense and rebounding fundamentals kept his overall net rating comfortably in the green.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.7
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 34.5m -20.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kevin Huerter 5.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

A stark departure from his recent highly efficient stretch, this brief stint was derailed by forced, out-of-rhythm perimeter shots. Missing all his attempts dragged his box impact into the red, and he failed to generate any defensive resistance to offset the offensive goose egg.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 5.7m -3.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 29.7m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Continuing a blistering stretch of efficiency, he maximized his touches by refusing to settle for contested jumpers. His stellar offensive orchestration was slightly muted by a lack of defensive disruption. Still, his methodical management of the half-court sets kept the overall needle pointing up.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 29.7m -17.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Bouncing back from a recent scoreless drought, he found success attacking the basket to generate a strong box impact. However, poor defensive positioning and a lack of hustle plays allowed opponents to score easily on the other end. The defensive bleed ultimately washed away his much-improved offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 20.5m -12.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Clunky offensive execution cratered his overall impact despite a mild uptick from his recent abysmal shooting slump. He provided reasonable defensive resistance, but missed interior bunnies and a lack of playmaking flow stalled out the offense. The inability to finish through contact continues to limit his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 18.3m -10.8
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Completely invisible on the offensive end, his failure to convert looks dragged down his unit's momentum. Defensive breakdowns and blown assignments compounded the issue, resulting in a steep negative total. He failed to replicate the high-percentage finishing that had defined his previous five outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -66.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.8
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 12.0m -7.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Making the most of a brief cameo, he provided a quick jolt of positive two-way energy. He stayed within himself offensively, taking only open looks, while contributing solid defensive rotations. It was a perfectly executed low-usage shift that kept the team in the plus column.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 6.6m -3.9
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

A disastrous short stint saw him hemorrhage value through forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers. His inability to initiate the offense led to empty possessions, tanking his box impact in less than five minutes. The signature point-of-attack defense he is known for was entirely absent.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -5.4
Avg player in 4.6m -2.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2