GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 36.5m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.3

Relentless perimeter defense and confident shot-making propelled a highly impactful two-way performance. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs on one end while aggressively hunting his spots on the other. This dual-threat capability forced the opponent to constantly adjust their coverages.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.8
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 36.5m -16.6
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 31.1m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

A brutal shooting slump from the outside completely tanked his overall value. He repeatedly stalled offensive momentum by forcing contested looks and missing all of his deep attempts. Even adequate defensive positioning couldn't salvage the damage done by his wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 31.1m -14.1
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bryce McGowens 22.4m
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Extreme passivity on offense rendered him a virtual non-factor during his extended run. He failed to pressure the rim or space the floor, effectively allowing the defense to play five-on-four. Despite decent hustle metrics, his complete lack of offensive assertion heavily penalized the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 22.4m -10.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derik Queen 19.6m
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Struggling to finish through contact around the rim severely limited his offensive utility. He missed several bunnies in traffic, allowing the defense to pack the paint without consequence. While he held his own defensively, the lack of hustle plays and poor touch inside resulted in a heavy negative rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 19.6m -8.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jeremiah Fears 16.6m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Scrappy perimeter defense and opportunistic scoring kept his head just above water. He navigated screens well and contested shots, though his overall volume was a sharp decline from recent outings. A solid, mistake-free shift that prioritized stability over explosive production.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -37.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 16.6m -7.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jordan Poole 30.6m
19
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.2

Extraordinary defensive engagement and relentless hustle masked a highly erratic shooting night. He chased down loose balls and disrupted passing lanes at an elite level, injecting chaotic energy into the game. The overall impact stayed positive despite him shooting his team out of several possessions from deep.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 30.6m -14.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
20
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.8

Unstoppable downhill momentum forced the defense into constant rotation, creating high-value opportunities for the unit. He drew multiple double-teams in the paint, leveraging that gravity to keep the offense humming. While his hustle metrics were surprisingly low, his sheer physical dominance dictated the tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 28.0m -12.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Defensive lapses at the point of attack slightly outweighed a highly efficient scoring burst. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, forcing the backline into uncomfortable rotations. The offensive execution was sharp, but the inability to stay in front of his man ultimately tipped the scales into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 25.5m -11.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 18.0m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Efficient finishing on dump-offs was offset by a lack of broader defensive presence. He converted his few looks around the basket but failed to alter shots or secure contested rebounds effectively. The result was a perfectly average shift that neither helped nor hurt the overall cause.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 18.0m -8.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Made the most of a very brief cameo by executing his assignments without error. He provided a quick burst of floor spacing from the frontcourt, knocking down his only perimeter look. His disciplined positioning ensured he was a slight positive during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 8.6m -3.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting appearance that offered no time to establish a rhythm. He executed basic defensive rotations but failed to register any tangible production. A purely transitional stint that resulted in a negligible negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 3.2m -1.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 36.5m
30
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.0

Elite shot creation and surgical precision from the midrange drove a highly productive shift. He consistently punished defensive rotations, finding his spots without forcing bad looks. Even with minimal hustle contributions, his offensive gravity and efficient scoring volume kept the team afloat.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 36.5m -16.6
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.7

High-volume perimeter shooting yielded mixed results, ultimately flattening his overall impact. While he generated excellent hustle metrics by fighting through screens and chasing loose balls, his streaky execution from beyond the arc stalled out several offensive possessions. The defensive effort was commendable, but the missed triples kept him just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +5.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 34.9m -16.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dillon Brooks 32.8m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Perimeter inefficiency dragged down an otherwise solid defensive showing. He squandered possessions by clanking the vast majority of his attempts from deep, which outweighed his positive disruption on the other end. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 32.8m -14.9
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 27.1m
24
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.5

Absolute dominance in the paint anchored this massive positive rating. He converted high-percentage looks with ruthless efficiency while simultaneously walling off the rim defensively. Constant activity on the glass and elite rim protection completely dictated the terms of engagement whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.4
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 27.1m -12.4
Impact +21.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Royce O'Neale 25.3m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

A severe lack of offensive aggression rendered him nearly invisible on that end of the floor. Passing up open looks and failing to generate rim pressure allowed the defense to completely ignore him. Compounding the issue, he struggled to stay in front of his assignments, resulting in a steep negative defensive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 25.3m -11.5
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 21.2m
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Timely cuts and opportunistic scoring around the basket fueled a strong two-way showing. He leveraged his athleticism to disrupt passing lanes, translating those defensive stops into easy transition looks. A balanced effort that didn't require high volume to leave a distinct mark on the game.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 21.2m -9.7
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 20.6m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Perfect execution on a low-usage diet highlighted a highly efficient, mistake-free stint. He took exactly what the defense gave him, converting his few opportunities around the basket without forcing the issue. This disciplined approach to his role ensured a steady, positive contribution despite a quiet defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 20.6m -9.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Offensive futility completely erased a genuinely disruptive defensive performance. He short-circuited the attack by bricking all of his three-point attempts, acting as an offensive sinkhole despite his relentless point-of-attack pressure. The hustle numbers pop, but you cannot survive that level of shot-making deficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 19.6m -8.9
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact doomed his brief time on the court. He forced the issue offensively, clanking multiple contested jumpers that sparked opponent run-outs. Offering zero resistance at the point of attack only magnified the damage from his empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 11.7m -5.3
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Settling for outside jumpers rather than attacking the paint limited his overall effectiveness. While he found some success inside the arc, missing all of his deep attempts bogged down the spacing. Defensive lapses in rotation ultimately dragged his net rating slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.5
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 10.5m -4.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0