GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 40.9m
33
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.0

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications by finding soft spots in the zone for high-value catch-and-shoot opportunities. Relentless crashing of the offensive glass created crucial extra possessions that firmly cemented his highly positive influence.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +28.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 40.9m -23.1
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 38.7m
21
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.3

Showcased excellent footwork in the post, yet his impact was muted by slow transitions back on defense that fueled opponent fast breaks. Despite active hands in the passing lanes, struggles in pick-and-roll coverage kept his net score hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 38.7m -21.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 35.1m
22
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Scored efficiently inside the arc but surrendered too much ground on defensive closeouts, allowing rhythm jumpers. The inability to stretch the floor from deep cramped the half-court spacing, slightly tipping his overall value into the negative.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 35.1m -19.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 33.5m
21
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided relentless ball pressure that disrupted the opponent's primary offensive actions and generated transition opportunities. Smart shot selection and decisive drives into the paint ensured his energetic two-way play translated into a net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 33.5m -19.1
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Bryce McGowens 25.8m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Pounded the ball excessively on the perimeter, leading to stagnant offensive sets and late-clock bailouts. A tendency to get caught ball-watching on defense allowed backbreaking weak-side cuts that severely damaged his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 25.8m -14.6
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Completely flipped the momentum with signature backcourt harassment and perfectly timed traps. Punished the defense for going under screens by nailing every perimeter look, maximizing his value in a highly efficient stint.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 25.3m -14.3
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Knocked down a couple of timely perimeter looks but was repeatedly targeted and exploited in isolation on the other end. An inability to stay in front of quicker guards forced defensive rotations that led to wide-open corner threes for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 22.2m -12.5
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 20.1m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Made quick, decisive cuts to the basket that exploited a sleeping weak-side defense. Maintained solid verticality at the rim, ensuring his highly efficient offensive execution wasn't given back on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 20.1m -11.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevon Looney 11.7m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Looked a step slow in drop coverage, consistently allowing guards to turn the corner and collapse the defense. Failing to secure defensive rebounds in traffic gave up backbreaking second-chance points that plummeted his net score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 11.7m -6.6
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Played a flawless complementary role by taking only high-value, in-rhythm shots within the flow of the offense. Disciplined closeouts and a refusal to bite on pump fakes effectively neutralized his matchup during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 11.7m -6.6
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 47.5m
44
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Incredible isolation scoring volume was heavily offset by defensive apathy and careless ball security when driving into traffic. The sheer number of offensive possessions he consumed meant his missed heat-checks and late-clock bailouts limited the team's overall flow.

Shooting
FG 16/30 (53.3%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.5m
Offense +26.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 47.5m -26.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 38.0m
26
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.5

Dominated the interior by converting high-percentage looks around the rim while masterfully anchoring the drop coverage. Elite rim deterrence and exceptional screen-setting generated a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +30.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +44.1
Avg player in 38.0m -21.6
Impact +22.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.5

Questionable shot selection plagued his stint, as he repeatedly bricked early-clock perimeter looks that fueled opponent fast breaks. Despite strong point-of-attack pressure and active hands in passing lanes, the offensive inefficiency ultimately resulted in a negative net yield.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 5/15 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 37.8m -21.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 33.1m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Flawless perimeter execution was overshadowed by underlying defensive lapses that dragged down his overall impact. An inability to contain dribble penetration in isolation sets likely contributed to the steep drop-off between his raw production and net influence.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 33.1m -18.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Julius Randle 32.7m
16
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.8

Settling for contested mid-range jumpers and forcing action into crowded paint areas resulted in empty, momentum-killing possessions. A complete lack of defensive resistance and low-energy closeouts allowed opponents to capitalize in transition, severely tanking his net score.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 32.7m -18.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 32.1m
18
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.1

Stretched the floor beautifully as a trail big, yet his overall impact suffered due to poor defensive rebounding positioning. Giving up crucial second-chance opportunities in the paint erased the value of his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 32.1m -18.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylen Clark 15.2m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Provided a brief spark with timely spot-up shooting, but struggled to navigate off-ball screens defensively. His limited offensive role meant that minor rotational mistakes on the defensive end disproportionately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 15.2m -8.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 13.3m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Struggled to create separation against younger guards, leading to forced, out-of-rhythm perimeter attempts. While veteran positioning yielded some positive defensive metrics, the inability to generate paint touches stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 13.3m -7.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Completely invisible during his minutes, offering zero resistance at the point of attack and failing to make decisive cuts offensively. A lack of weak-side awareness allowed easy backdoor cuts that heavily penalized his net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -68.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 7.9m -4.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Looked overwhelmed by the physicality of the opposing backcourt during his brief stint. Failing to initiate offensive sets cleanly resulted in stagnant possessions and a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 7.3m -4.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0