GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Bryce McGowens 33.9m
15
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+5.6) and constant off-ball motion kept his value firmly in the green despite a clunky shooting performance. He manufactured extra possessions through sheer effort (+5.1 hustle), mitigating the damage of his missed perimeter looks. His willingness to embrace the gritty, unglamorous tasks defined his night.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 33.9m -18.0
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Trey Murphy III 33.8m
21
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.9

Pivoted beautifully into a playmaking and defensive role (+5.0) when his perimeter touch completely abandoned him. By attacking closeouts to collapse the defense rather than settling for contested jumpers, he salvaged his overall impact. His versatility prevented a poor shooting night from becoming a net negative.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 33.8m -17.9
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 33.5m
20
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.5

Empty calorie scoring masked a slew of hidden mistakes that ultimately dragged his net impact into negative territory. While the raw offensive production looked solid, poor transition defense and likely live-ball turnovers bled points the other way. He struggled to translate individual shot-making into functional team success.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 33.5m -18.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Saddiq Bey 33.2m
20
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Overcame a frigid night from beyond the arc by imposing his will physically, generating a stellar +9.7 total impact through sheer defensive tenacity. His ability to bully his way to the rim and disrupt passing lanes (+7.4 defense) completely overshadowed the perimeter misses. This was a masterclass in finding alternative ways to dominate a game.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.4
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 33.2m -17.6
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 29.1m
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.2

Relentless activity on the margins (+5.8 hustle) and surprisingly sharp high-post facilitation anchored a highly effective shift. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor and made quick, decisive reads to cutters. A marked improvement in shot selection allowed his underlying connective traits to shine.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 29.1m -15.5
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Sparked a massive momentum shift with his trademark backcourt harassment (+3.1 hustle) and a surprise barrage of perimeter shot-making. By punishing defenders who went under screens, he shattered his usual scoring output and forced frantic defensive rotations. His chaotic, high-energy presence dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 22.1m -11.6
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Continued his streak of ruthless interior efficiency, punishing defensive rotations with decisive rolls to the rim. His sturdy drop coverage (+3.7 defense) effectively walled off the paint during his rotation minutes. Proved to be a highly stabilizing, low-mistake presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 18.5m -9.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Struggled to find a rhythm inside the arc, forcing contested looks that fueled opponent run-outs and damaged his overall impact. Although he provided brief flashes of perimeter spacing, his inability to defend without fouling or secure loose balls left the second unit vulnerable. A sharp regression from his recent hyper-efficient stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 16.2m -8.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Micah Peavy 15.2m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Completely vanished on the offensive end, creating severe spacing issues that cratered the team's half-court execution. While he competed admirably on the defensive glass, his absolute lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to freely double-team the primary ball-handlers. The resulting offensive stagnation directly caused his steep -8.7 net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 15.2m -8.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Looked overwhelmed during a brief cameo, rushing his offensive reads and failing to register any positive counting stats. Opponents quickly targeted his side of the floor, leading to a rapid -3.9 impact drain before he was pulled. His inability to adjust to the game's speed was glaring.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 4.5m -2.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 36.5m
28
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Dominant isolation scoring and continued shooting efficiency drove a massive box score rating, but hidden costs severely dragged down his overall net impact. Defensive lapses and likely live-ball mistakes neutralized nearly all of his offensive production. He remains an offensive force, yet the wide gap between his raw production and actual game influence (+0.9) tells the story of a one-sided performance.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 36.5m -19.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jaden McDaniels 34.8m
14
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.7

High-level defensive engagement (+6.4) and constant activity on the margins anchored his positive overall impact. A slight regression in shooting efficiency from his recent hot streak kept his offensive ceiling in check. His willingness to do the dirty work (+5.6 hustle) ensured he remained a net positive despite the perimeter struggles.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.4
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 34.8m -18.5
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Crisp perimeter spacing and improved shooting efficiency generated a strong box score rating, but defensive vulnerabilities ultimately dragged his net impact into the red. Opponents consistently targeted him on switches, neutralizing the value of his spot-up gravity. The stark contrast between his offensive rhythm and defensive execution defined his night.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 32.1m -17.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 31.4m
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.8

A bizarrely passive offensive approach severely undercut his value, resulting in a disastrous -12.8 total impact despite solid defensive metrics. Refusing to attack the paint and settling for a remarkably low shot volume left the offense stagnant during his shifts. While his point-of-attack defense remained sharp, his inability to generate rim pressure cratered the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 31.4m -16.6
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 8
S Rudy Gobert 23.9m
15
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.1

Elite rim deterrence and highly efficient interior finishing fueled a massive +11.1 overall impact in just 24 minutes. Capitalizing on deep post positioning allowed him to surge past his usual scoring average without forcing bad looks. His presence completely altered the geometry of the opponent's shot profile.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 23.9m -12.7
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Naz Reid 32.7m
19
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.9

Floor-stretching gravity and excellent rotational defense (+6.5) propelled a highly effective two-way performance. He consistently punished drop coverage by hunting quality looks from the perimeter, breaking out of a recent scoring slump. His ability to blend rim protection with high-volume outside shooting made him a matchup nightmare.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 32.7m -17.4
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Mike Conley 16.8m
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.4

Completely derailed the offensive flow with a string of forced perimeter misses, leading to a catastrophic -14.4 net impact in under 17 minutes. His inability to keep opposing guards in front of him compounded the damage on the other end of the floor. This was a distinctly sluggish outing where both his shot selection and lateral quickness were exposed.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.1
Raw total -5.4
Avg player in 16.8m -9.0
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 14.5m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Provided a massive jolt of secondary scoring off the bench, capitalizing on aggressive cuts and confident perimeter strokes to shatter his usual averages. His disruptive on-ball pressure (+2.6 defense) fed directly into transition opportunities. Maximized every second of his short rotation by playing with relentless downhill energy.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 14.5m -7.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Flashed intriguing downhill burst to generate quick points, yet struggled to positively influence the broader team construct during his brief stint. Minor positional mistakes and a lack of connective passing kept his overall impact slightly negative. Still, his willingness to attack closeouts showed promising offensive aggression.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 9.2m -4.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Shifted his focus entirely to high-energy facilitation and scrappy loose-ball recoveries (+4.2 hustle) when his own shot wasn't falling. By prioritizing ball movement over forcing bad looks, he carved out a highly positive impact in a short window. This mature, connective approach proved far more valuable than raw scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 8.2m -4.4
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0