GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Anthony Black 36.3m
24
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.7

Aggressive perimeter defense and a confident stroke from deep defined his highly productive outing. He consistently pressured opposing ball-handlers into uncomfortable situations, translating those defensive stops into early-clock scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 36.3m -19.4
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 32.8m
15
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.7

A disastrous shooting night from the perimeter tanked his overall value, repeatedly short-circuiting possessions with forced jumpers. He tried to compensate with phenomenal hustle and rebounding effort, but the sheer volume of empty offensive trips proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.7%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 32.8m -17.4
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Paolo Banchero 31.2m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Struggled heavily to find his touch in isolation sets, leading to a sharp drop in his usual scoring production and efficiency. Strong weak-side defensive rotations and decent hustle helped mitigate the damage, keeping his negative impact from becoming catastrophic.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 31.2m -16.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.4

Anchored the interior with exceptional positional awareness, extending his streak of efficient shooting nights by feasting on pick-and-pop opportunities. His ability to secure traffic rebounds and contest shots at the rim drove a massive box score impact and a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 28.3m -15.1
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tyus Jones 19.6m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Bounced back from a recent scoreless slump with efficient perimeter shooting, capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot looks. Unfortunately, a complete absence of hustle plays and passive point-of-attack defense dragged his net impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 19.6m -10.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Delivered a massive scoring spike off the bench, punishing defensive lapses with highly efficient slashing and finishing. This unexpected offensive explosion drove a stellar box score impact, easily covering up his relatively quiet defensive performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 22.1m -11.9
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to convert against physical closeouts, resulting in a significant dip from his usual scoring output. He remained engaged defensively and fought for loose balls, which kept his overall impact score hovering just below neutral despite the poor shooting night.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 21.9m -11.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Failed to make any dent offensively, missing his few attempts and allowing the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. While he provided his customary length and disruption on the defensive end, the offensive spacing issues he created outweighed those contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 16.5m -8.9
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jamal Cain 14.2m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Snapped a long streak of efficient shooting by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. Compounding the offensive struggles was a series of blown defensive assignments, leading to easy backdoor cuts that heavily penalized his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense -1.4
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 14.2m -7.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 11.1m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Offensive ineptitude plagued his minutes, as he bricked multiple open looks and stalled the team's half-court execution. Despite showing some flashes of competence in defensive rotations, his inability to generate any positive momentum or hustle stats resulted in a steep negative score.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 11.1m -6.0
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely registered during a brief rotational cameo, failing to record any meaningful offensive or defensive actions. The lack of physical engagement or hustle stats during this short stint resulted in a slightly negative overall grade.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.2m -1.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Rushed his perimeter attempts during garbage time, completely missing the mark and halting his recent stretch of efficient shooting. Without any defensive playmaking to fall back on, those empty offensive possessions quickly dragged his impact score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 2.8m -1.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 36.2m
15
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Poor shot selection and forced isolation attempts cratered his offensive value, snapping a three-game streak of highly efficient scoring. Despite strong defensive metrics and active hands in the passing lanes, his inability to find a rhythm offensively dragged down his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 22.3%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 36.2m -19.4
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 34.8m
16
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.5

A massive defensive effort anchored his high impact score, routinely blowing up pick-and-roll actions to protect the paint. He paired that physical interior presence with excellent hustle metrics, generating extra possessions that far outweighed his mediocre perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 34.8m -18.6
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Moussa Diabaté 32.7m
10
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Continued his streak of highly efficient interior finishing, capitalizing on dump-offs and offensive putbacks to maintain a sterling shooting percentage. His relentless activity around the rim generated a strong box score impact, though sluggish defensive rotations occasionally left him out of position.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 32.7m -17.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 28.6m
22
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.5

High-volume inefficiency severely limited his effectiveness, as he repeatedly settled for contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock. While he displayed impressive hustle and defensive activity, the wasted offensive possessions ultimately resulted in a steep negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 39.7%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 28.6m -15.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Kon Knueppel 15.2m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Elite perimeter efficiency drove his strong positive impact, punishing defensive rotations with perfect shooting from beyond the arc. His floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, while adequate defensive positioning kept him from giving points back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 15.2m -8.1
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.3

Dominated the margins with an elite combination of hyper-efficient finishing and relentless two-way energy. His exceptional hustle metrics and switchable defensive presence completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm, resulting in the highest net impact on the roster.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.9
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 22.1m -11.8
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Sion James 20.6m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

An absolute zero offensively, failing to generate any downhill pressure and allowing defenders to completely sag off him in the half-court. He managed to salvage some value through gritty point-of-attack defense and hustle plays, but the lack of scoring gravity made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 20.6m -11.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Maintained his streak of efficient shooting by picking his spots carefully from beyond the arc, even on significantly lower volume than usual. While his offensive execution was crisp, lackluster defensive engagement kept his overall impact score relatively modest.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 18.4m -9.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 11.7m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Provided a surprising scoring burst compared to his recent slump, finding success on spot-up opportunities from the corners. However, a complete lack of hustle stats and minimal defensive resistance prevented this offensive uptick from translating into a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 11.7m -6.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 9.3m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Maximized his limited minutes by providing sturdy interior defense and capitalizing on his few touches around the basket. His disciplined positioning deterred drives to the rim, allowing him to post a solid positive rating despite a low-usage offensive role.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 9.3m -4.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 8.4m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, failing to threaten the defense during his brief stint on the floor. Without his usual scoring punch to bend the defense, his lack of physical hustle or defensive playmaking left him with a highly detrimental impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 8.4m -4.6
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Essentially operated as a cardio participant during his brief floor time, failing to attempt a shot or register any defensive metrics. His complete lack of tangible production or hustle stats resulted in a slightly negative output for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0