GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.5m
27
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.9

Lethal shot selection and pristine execution fueled a massive offensive breakout that shattered his recent averages. He consistently punished defensive closeouts, attacking the rim when run off the three-point line. This highly efficient scoring clinic was the primary driver behind his stellar positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 38.5m -23.9
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Herbert Jones 38.2m
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.6

An absolute masterclass in disruptive defense drove a towering net impact, as he completely suffocated opposing ball-handlers. He paired this elite perimeter lockdown ability with a surprising offensive resurgence, capitalizing on transition leaks. His relentless activity in the passing lanes set the tone for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +9.2
Defense +16.1
Raw total +38.6
Avg player in 38.2m -24.0
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 8
BLK 1
TO 1
S Derik Queen 35.4m
16
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Despite flashing improved offensive aggression compared to his recent slump, inefficient finishing in traffic dragged his overall impact into the red. He generated solid value through active rim protection and hustle, but empty possessions on the offensive end proved costly. Opposing bigs successfully baited him into low-percentage looks late in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 35.4m -22.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Saddiq Bey 34.3m
29
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.8

Aggressive perimeter hunting and stout defensive positioning created a dominant two-way performance. He bullied smaller matchups in the mid-post while maintaining excellent spacing from beyond the arc. This combination of physical defense and elevated scoring efficiency resulted in a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.4%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.9
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 34.3m -21.5
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 20.2m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

A sharp decline in offensive volume and passive off-ball movement resulted in a detrimental floor presence. Opposing guards easily navigated his defensive pressure, exposing gaps in the backcourt rotation. Unable to find his usual scoring rhythm, his overall effectiveness plummeted compared to his recent hot streak.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 20.2m -12.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.4

Despite a slight uptick in scoring efficiency, his overall impact cratered due to severe defensive breakdowns against larger assignments. He struggled to dictate the tempo, frequently allowing the opposition to get comfortable in their half-court sets. The lack of his trademark backcourt disruption left the secondary unit vulnerable.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 30.4m -19.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Poole 24.5m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Erratic shot selection capped his overall effectiveness, though he managed to stay slightly positive through surprisingly engaged perimeter defense. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, disrupting the offensive flow. Ultimately, his defensive rotations salvaged a night where his jumper remained inconsistent.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 24.5m -15.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

A stark inability to finish through interior traffic derailed his typically dominant paint presence, leading to a negative net rating. Opposing defenses successfully built a wall, forcing him into awkward angles and stripping away his usual efficiency. This passive offensive showing was a sharp departure from his recent bullying standard.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 21.4m -13.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Maximized a low-usage role by executing perfectly when called upon, extending a streak of highly efficient finishing. He provided sturdy screen-setting and disciplined verticality, ensuring the bench unit didn't bleed points. His reliable positional awareness kept his impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 11.1m -6.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Yves Missi 6.4m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

A completely invisible offensive stint and poor pick-and-roll coverage led to a rapid negative swing during his brief time on the floor. He failed to establish any physical presence in the paint, allowing opponents free rein at the rim. The coaching staff quickly pulled the plug after he missed multiple defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 6.4m -3.9
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
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Failed to leave a mark during a fleeting rotational appearance, yielding a slight negative impact. He operated strictly as a floor spacer but never commanded defensive attention. A lack of aggression on either end rendered his minutes largely empty.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.4
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 4.6m -2.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
12
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
-26.0

Brutal offensive inefficiency cratered his overall impact rating, as forced perimeter shots consistently derailed offensive momentum. While he provided some value through hustle plays on the glass, the sheer volume of empty possessions was too much to overcome. His ongoing shooting slump continues to severely limit his effectiveness in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.1m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 44.1m -27.7
Impact -26.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kevin Durant 42.7m
32
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Searing perimeter efficiency fueled a massive box-score contribution, as he punished defenders with clinical execution from deep. Despite strong individual defensive metrics, his overall net impact was surprisingly muted relative to his raw production. He sustained his recent scoring surge by relentlessly exploiting isolation mismatches.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.7m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 42.7m -26.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 6
S Amen Thompson 40.6m
23
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Slashing to the rim with ruthless efficiency allowed him to sustain a hot offensive streak and generate high-value looks. His relentless rim pressure and solid hustle metrics were slightly offset by spacing limitations when operating off the ball. Still, his ability to consistently collapse the defense defined his successful night.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 40.6m -25.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Alperen Sengun 35.7m
28
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.1

High-usage playmaking and relentless interior activity generated a massive positive impact, even with a dip in his usual finishing efficiency. He dominated the offensive flow by creating constant pressure in the paint and generating second-chance opportunities. His defensive positioning and hustle metrics fully validated his role as the primary engine for the unit.

Shooting
FG 11/26 (42.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +35.4
Avg player in 35.7m -22.3
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 30.2m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

A surprising surge in offensive aggression yielded positive box-score value, breaking a recent trend of passive play. However, his negative overall impact suggests defensive breakdowns or rotational mistakes that gave points right back to the opponent. He thrived as a secondary cutter but struggled to anchor his assignments on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 30.2m -18.9
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Steven Adams 27.8m
6
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact around the basket dragged down his overall effectiveness. While his traditional physical screening and interior presence yielded decent defensive metrics, the missed bunnies stalled half-court momentum. Opponents successfully neutralized his roll-gravity by crowding the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 24.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 27.8m -17.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.1

Cold perimeter shooting suppressed his usual offensive punch, forcing him to find alternative ways to contribute. He salvaged a positive net rating through excellent defensive rotations and active hands in passing lanes. Navigating a tough shooting night, his playmaking and grit kept him in the plus column.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 26.9m -16.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Brief rotational minutes resulted in a noticeable negative swing, primarily due to defensive vulnerabilities against larger guards. He failed to establish a rhythm or disrupt the opponent's offensive flow during his short stint. A lack of disruptive hustle plays left him exposed when his perimeter shots weren't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 10.3m -6.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Maximized a very short stint off the bench by providing immediate rim protection and vertical spacing. His energetic defensive presence completely altered the geometry of the paint during a crucial transition stretch. This hyper-efficient cameo was a stark improvement over his recent quiet outings.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 6.7m -4.2
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1