GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 37.8m
32
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.6

Absolute dominance as a primary scoring option drove an elite net rating. He torched defenders with a versatile shot profile, easily surpassing his recent scoring averages while maintaining incredible efficiency. Combined with suffocating perimeter defense, his two-way masterclass dictated the flow of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +25.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.2
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 37.8m -23.6
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 36.2m
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Despite highly efficient scoring and solid hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to broader lineup struggles during his minutes. He executed well offensively by attacking closeouts, but was frequently caught on the wrong end of opponent scoring runs. The disconnect between his strong individual box score and negative net rating points to poor rotational synergy.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 36.2m -22.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 33.1m
33
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.7

A historic playmaking and scoring leap completely shattered his recent production trends, resulting in a monstrous positive impact. He operated as the flawless engine of the offense, dissecting the defense from the high post while finishing everything around the rim. Adding elite hustle and rim protection to his masterful distribution cemented a truly dominant performance.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 79.6%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 33.1m -20.7
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
S Herbert Jones 25.7m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.0

Defensive devastation was the calling card here, as he completely neutralized his primary assignments to generate a massive positive defensive rating. He paired this lockdown effort with timely, highly efficient cuts to the basket that punished over-helping defenders. This elite combination of event-creation on defense and opportunistic scoring drove the highest impact score on the roster.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +11.6
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 25.7m -15.9
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jeremiah Fears 20.7m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.2

A drastic offensive slump destroyed his net impact, as he failed to generate the rim pressure that usually defines his game. Clanking open looks and forcing contested shots bogged down the half-court offense significantly. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't salvage the massive hole created by his scoring disappearing act.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 20.7m -12.9
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.9

Trademark defensive peskiness and improved shooting efficiency weren't enough to overcome the negative swings during his shifts. He energized the offense with timely perimeter shot-making, breaking out of a recent slump. However, the team consistently lost the math battle while he was on the floor, dragging his overall rating down despite strong individual metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 31.2m -19.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Defensive liabilities and an inability to string together stops heavily outweighed a perfectly fine shooting night. He was frequently targeted in isolation, bleeding points and compromising the defensive shell. The resulting negative swing masked his efficient shot-making in a reserve role.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 23.5m -14.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Peavy 13.2m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Forcing the issue offensively rather than moving the ball led to empty possessions and transition chances for the opponent. Poor shot selection and bricked perimeter attempts stifled the second unit's offensive flow. While he provided adequate defensive energy, the offensive inefficiency dictated his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -70.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 13.2m -8.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 7.6m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Limited floor time offered little opportunity to alter the game's momentum. He converted his only look at the rim but struggled with positioning on the defensive end during his short run. The lack of sustained action kept his overall impact relatively muted.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 7.6m -4.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalizing on limited touches allowed him to maintain his streak of flawless interior finishing during a highly specialized, short-burst rotation. He provided immediate value as a rim-runner. A slight defensive dip kept his overall impact modest, but he executed his role perfectly.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -99.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 7.3m -4.5
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Barely saw the floor and was completely neutralized during his brief cameo. Failing to register any positive counting stats, his quick stint coincided with a rapid opponent scoring run. The total lack of offensive involvement resulted in a sharp negative impact despite the tiny sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -137.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 3.6m -2.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Harrison Barnes 35.1m
24
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite a massive offensive explosion that far exceeded his recent output, defensive lapses kept his overall net rating in the red. He thrived as a floor-spacer by punishing late rotations, generating immense box-score value. However, giving up critical penetration on the other end neutralized his scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.7
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 35.1m -21.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S De'Aaron Fox 30.4m
14
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.3

Strong point-of-attack defense was completely overshadowed by an inability to convert in the paint. He settled for contested looks rather than breaking down the defense, leading to a stagnant offensive flow when he was on the floor. The resulting empty possessions dragged his overall impact down despite his disruptive defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 30.4m -19.0
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Devin Vassell 27.2m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.3

A severe offensive regression cratered his overall impact, as he failed to find any rhythm on the perimeter. The drastic drop-off in scoring volume left a massive void in the team's half-court execution. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately dragged down an otherwise quiet defensive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 27.2m -16.9
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luke Kornet 25.6m
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Continued his streak of efficient finishing around the rim, but his limited offensive volume wasn't enough to offset broader lineup struggles. He provided decent activity on the glass, yet struggled to anchor the paint defensively against quicker matchups. The lack of defensive deterrence ultimately pulled his impact score into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 25.6m -16.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 23.1m
18
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.1

Poor shot selection and inefficient finishing at the rim severely dampened his offensive contributions. While he maintained his usual scoring aggression, the high volume of missed attempts fueled opponent transition opportunities. A negative defensive rating further compounded the damage from his erratic shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 23.1m -14.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite floor spacing and high-level defensive rotations fueled a stellar two-way performance. He capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities to stretch the defense, significantly boosting his box-score value. Active hands in the passing lanes and strong closeouts cemented his highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.0
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 28.9m -18.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 25.9m
22
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.6

A relentless downhill attacking style drove a highly efficient scoring night that elevated the entire second unit. He consistently collapsed the defense to create high-quality looks, extending his streak of hyper-efficient performances. Solid defensive positioning ensured his offensive surge translated into a positive overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 25.9m -16.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.1

Efficient bully-ball drives and timely hustle plays generated a strong positive rating in limited minutes. He maximized his touches by attacking mismatches aggressively without forcing bad shots. Even with a neutral defensive showing, his offensive decisiveness kept the team firmly in the plus column during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 16.7m -10.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kelly Olynyk 14.9m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

A massive departure from his recent scoring slump, he operated as an elite offensive hub while anchoring the defense. His ability to draw bigs away from the basket opened up cutting lanes, driving his high box-score impact. Surprisingly stout post defense further amplified his value, resulting in a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 14.9m -9.3
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a brief but effective spark off the bench by capitalizing on broken plays. His defensive activity was the real standout, as he disrupted multiple actions during his short rotation. The combination of opportunistic scoring and solid perimeter containment yielded a slightly positive net result.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +72.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 8.4m -5.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

A very brief stint on the floor limited his ability to influence the game in either direction. He flashed some defensive versatility in his few possessions, but the lack of playing time prevented him from establishing any offensive rhythm. His overall impact remained essentially neutral due to the microscopic sample size.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.7m -2.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1