GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 33.0m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

High-level shot selection and timely perimeter execution kept the offense humming during his shifts. He supplemented his scoring with disciplined closeouts and solid weak-side awareness (+2.9 Def). While his total impact was modest, his ability to stretch the floor without forcing the issue provided crucial structural stability.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 33.0m -16.0
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 27.9m
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

A gritty, physical approach compensated for a somewhat erratic shooting performance from the outside. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort (+3.1 Hustle) and held his ground admirably against larger matchups in the post. This blue-collar mentality ensured his minutes were highly productive despite the missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 27.9m -13.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 27.2m
17
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.7

Absolute perfection from the field fueled a massive offensive surge that completely overwhelmed the interior defense. He anchored the paint with imposing physicality, altering numerous shots and dominating the glass (+5.6 Def). This breakout performance was defined by an unstoppable combination of touch around the basket and elite defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 8/8 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 27.2m -13.3
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 22.5m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.1

A drastic drop in scoring efficiency crippled the offense during his tenure on the floor. He failed to generate separation against physical coverage, leading to stalled possessions and a severe negative box impact (-6.5). The inability to replicate his usual offensive production left a glaring hole that the second unit could not overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -6.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total -5.1
Avg player in 22.5m -11.0
Impact -16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Herbert Jones 12.1m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Offensive struggles were quickly overshadowed by his trademark defensive versatility and point-of-attack disruption (+4.2 Def). He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions and forced the ball out of primary creators' hands. Even with a reduced scoring load, his ability to dictate the terms of engagement on defense secured a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +64.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 12.1m -5.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Poole 31.6m
16
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
0.0

A disastrous performance from beyond the arc negated a massive uptick in overall scoring volume. He surprisingly salvaged a neutral rating through relentless hustle (+5.2) and active hands in passing lanes. The stark contrast between his erratic shot selection and high-energy effort plays resulted in a perfectly balanced, yet chaotic, net zero impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 31.6m -15.4
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
29
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.5

Unstoppable downhill momentum and elite finishing at the rim generated a staggering positive box impact (+23.8). He paired his offensive dominance with surprising defensive engagement, actively contesting shots and securing loose balls (+4.2 Def). This overwhelming physical display completely dictated the pace and outcome of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 23.5m -11.5
Impact +19.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.5

Offensive rhythm completely eluded him, as missed perimeter looks bogged down the team's transition opportunities. His usually disruptive defensive presence was surprisingly muted (-0.1 Def), allowing opposing guards to operate with unusual comfort. The combination of cold shooting and a lack of point-of-attack pressure resulted in a heavily negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 22.0m -10.6
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Steady interior execution and disciplined rim protection provided a reliable stabilizing presence. He maintained his streak of efficient finishing while consistently altering shots in the paint (+3.5 Def). This low-mistake, high-fundamentals approach ensured the frontcourt didn't miss a beat during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 19.9m -9.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Micah Peavy 14.6m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Flawless perimeter shooting provided a massive, unexpected boost to the secondary scoring attack. He capitalized on every open look, punishing defensive rotations and maximizing his limited touches. This sudden burst of hyper-efficiency fundamentally shifted the momentum during his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 14.6m -7.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 2.9m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Immediate capitalization on interior mismatches drove a highly productive cameo appearance. He established deep post position quickly, converting high-percentage looks before the defense could react. This brief but impactful burst of paint scoring provided a tangible lift to the overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A complete failure to launch offensively defined this brief and ineffective stint. He was unable to find any separation, rushing his few attempts and failing to register any positive hustle metrics. The sudden disappearance of his usual scoring punch left the lineup devoid of necessary floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 30.9m
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

A heavy reliance on outside jumpers yielded mixed results and suppressed his overall efficiency. However, a strong commitment to doing the dirty work (+4.4 Hustle) and steady defensive rotations kept his net impact slightly above water. His ability to generate secondary scoring opportunities partially masked the subpar shooting night.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.4%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 30.9m -15.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andrew Nembhard 27.0m
7
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.5

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish in traffic severely damaged his offensive rating. He struggled to find any rhythm as a primary creator, missing badly on several contested looks that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Marginal defensive contributions weren't nearly enough to offset the damage done by his inefficient volume.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -44.1
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 27.0m -13.1
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.5

Severe shooting struggles from the perimeter cratered his overall value, as he failed to connect on any of his deep attempts. Despite commendable hustle metrics (+4.0) keeping him engaged defensively, the sheer volume of empty possessions dragged his impact into the deep negative. His massive drop-off in scoring output fundamentally stalled the offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -53.9
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 26.8m -13.1
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jay Huff 21.3m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Clunky perimeter execution limited his offensive ceiling, as he misfired on all of his outside looks. He salvaged a neutral impact through active rim runs and solid positional rebounding that generated positive box metrics (+6.6). A lack of defensive deterrence at the basket prevented him from making a larger positive dent.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 21.3m -10.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Quenton Jackson 17.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

An uncharacteristically passive offensive approach snapped a hot shooting streak and minimized his floor spacing value. While he remained active in loose ball situations (+3.5 Hustle), his inability to pressure the defense or create advantages led to a highly negative overall stint. The stark drop in scoring volume left a noticeable void in the second unit's attack.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 17.0m -8.2
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Elite finishing and opportunistic cutting drove a stellar box score impact (+16.1). The scoring punch masked some glaring defensive lapses (-1.4 Def) where he was frequently caught out of position on rotations. Ultimately, his ability to capitalize on defensive breakdowns provided enough offensive firepower to secure a solid positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 23.2m -11.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

A brutal night from beyond the arc torpedoed his offensive impact and snapped a highly efficient four-game stretch. He stayed engaged on the less glamorous end with excellent defensive rotations (+4.0 Def), but the sheer number of wasted possessions ultimately sank his overall rating. Opponents actively dared him to shoot, and his inability to make them pay stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 28.4%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -25.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 20.1m -9.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Inconsistent perimeter execution dragged down an otherwise functional offensive stint. He struggled to find the range from deep, which allowed defenders to sag off and clog driving lanes for his teammates. A lack of high-impact defensive plays or hustle contributions left him unable to recover the value lost to missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 18.9m -9.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+16.4

Relentless rim pressure and surgical mid-range execution completely dismantled the opposing backcourt. He paired his offensive masterclass with suffocating point-of-attack defense (+5.8 Def) that consistently disrupted the opponent's timing. This two-way clinic defined the game's momentum and generated a massive positive swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 17.5m -8.5
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Efficient interior finishing provided a brief offensive lift, but his overall impact was muted by a lack of defensive deterrence. He failed to alter shots at the rim consistently, allowing opponents to score too easily in the painted area. The combination of low volume and marginal rim protection resulted in a slight negative return.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 14.7m -7.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

A rare off-night finishing around the basket snapped his streak of hyper-efficient performances. He managed to keep his head above water by anchoring the paint defensively and securing key contested rebounds (+2.5 Hustle). The lack of vertical spacing was noticeable, but his foundational rim protection ensured his minutes remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -57.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 12.0m -5.8
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Flawless execution in a brief window maximized his value as a floor spacer. He leveraged his gravity perfectly, punishing defensive lapses while remaining highly disciplined on the other end (+3.9 Def). This hyper-efficient cameo provided exactly the kind of low-maintenance spark needed from a deep rotation piece.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 10.6m -5.2
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0