GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.0m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

Phenomenal weak-side defensive rotations were entirely undone by clunky offensive execution. His inability to connect on spot-up opportunities and likely live-ball mistakes dragged a stellar defensive profile into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +11.0
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 38.0m -21.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 35.2m
19
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

A brutal goose egg from beyond the arc severely punished his overall efficiency. While he found ways to score inside the arc, the sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions crippled his net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 35.2m -19.8
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 34.2m
19
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.4

An unexpected scoring surge combined with relentless interior hustle resulted in a highly productive shift. He dominated his individual matchups on both ends, pairing efficient finishing with highly disruptive defensive activity.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +9.6
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 34.2m -19.3
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 32
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jeremiah Fears 24.1m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Tenacious on-ball defense and active hands kept him in the green despite a miserable shooting night. He compensated for a broken jumper by generating extra possessions and disrupting the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 24.1m -13.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 21.7m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

High-IQ defensive rotations and timely hustle plays provided a steady foundational impact. He didn't demand the ball, instead letting the game come to him and capitalizing on high-percentage transition looks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 21.7m -12.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Poole 27.2m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Erratic shot selection from the perimeter continues to be the anchor weighing down his overall value. Even with an uptick in scoring volume and decent hustle metrics, the wasted offensive possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 27.2m -15.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
24
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.4

Unstoppable downhill momentum and elite finishing at the rim generated a massive positive impact. He bullied defenders in the paint at will, requiring zero perimeter volume to completely dictate the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 25.1m -14.2
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided a reliable spark plug effect by knocking down timely perimeter looks and applying signature backcourt pressure. His focused, mistake-free minutes offered exactly the kind of stabilizing presence needed from the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 15.6m -8.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Struggled to make a meaningful imprint during his rotation minutes, likely bleeding value through defensive miscommunications or minor errors. A lack of assertiveness on the block allowed opponents to dictate the tempo while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 13.7m -7.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a slightly negative rating. He failed to integrate into the offensive flow during his limited run, essentially acting as a placeholder on the wing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 5.3m -3.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Anthony Davis 35.3m
35
pts
17
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.2

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive rating. He overwhelmed frontcourt matchups with relentless interior finishing and elite rim protection, serving as the undisputed engine for the team.

Shooting
FG 16/28 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 35.3m -20.0
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Cooper Flagg 35.0m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.8

A sharp drop in scoring volume from his usual dominant stretch severely capped his overall value. While he remained engaged on the defensive end, hidden mistakes like live-ball turnovers and fouls dragged his net impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 35.0m -19.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 29.1m
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.9

Highly efficient shot selection fueled a strong offensive rating, punishing defensive rotations with timely cuts. However, a complete lack of measurable defensive impact prevented his overall score from matching his scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 29.1m -16.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 28.4m
8
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Passive offensive involvement neutralized a genuinely strong defensive showing. He anchored his matchups well and generated positive hustle events, but simply didn't take enough shots to keep his overall impact afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 28.4m -16.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ryan Nembhard 24.6m
4
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-17.7

Disastrous perimeter shooting completely cratered his overall value. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock negated any marginal defensive contributions he made on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 15.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -9.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total -3.8
Avg player in 24.6m -13.9
Impact -17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
20
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

A heavy diet of perimeter attempts yielded a scoring surge, but the sheer volume of missed jumpers dragged down his efficiency metrics. The offensive aggression was necessary, yet it ultimately resulted in empty possessions that hurt the net score.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 31.1m -17.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Martin 16.8m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Extreme offensive passivity resulted in a completely neutral rating. He didn't force any bad looks and maintained solid defensive positioning, but simply blended into the background during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 16.8m -9.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Smothering point-of-attack defense salvaged what was otherwise a brutal offensive outing. A severe regression in finishing at the rim was perfectly offset by his relentless ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 14.7m -8.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Despite virtually disappearing from the offensive gameplan, his rim deterrence and activity level kept his impact positive. He maximized limited minutes by focusing strictly on contesting shots and securing loose balls.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 14.1m -7.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 10.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc quickly derailed his offensive rhythm. Unable to find the range, his inability to generate rim pressure left his overall impact in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 10.9m -6.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0