GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 38.1m
24
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.9

High-volume usage masked the defensive concessions (-1.8 Def) that ultimately dragged his net score into the red. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently dying on screens and forcing the backline into rotation. A pattern of settling for contested mid-range looks rather than attacking the rim further limited his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.8
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 38.1m -20.5
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
18
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Solid screening and positional rebounding were overshadowed by a tendency to pop into contested perimeter jumpers. His defensive metrics hovered near neutral, but he failed to deter slashers at the rim during crucial fourth-quarter stretches. The overall impact was slightly depressed by a lack of vertical spacing in the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 37.8m -20.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Paolo Banchero 36.0m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-17.4

A disastrous offensive flow characterized by forced interior passes and live-ball turnovers completely tanked his impact score. He repeatedly drove into heavily populated paint areas, resulting in empty possessions that sparked opponent transition opportunities. This stubborn shot selection against set double-teams defined a highly detrimental performance.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 36.0m -19.4
Impact -17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Anthony Black 30.1m
38
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.7

An absolute masterclass in shot selection and perimeter execution drove a staggering +21.7 net impact. He consistently punished under-screens with lethal deep-range accuracy, warping the entire defensive shell. Active hands in the passing lanes (+3.6 Def) fueled a personal transition attack that broke the game open.

Shooting
FG 14/24 (58.3%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +31.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +37.9
Avg player in 30.1m -16.2
Impact +21.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyus Jones 22.7m
0
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.9

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him a complete non-threat, allowing his defender to aggressively trap other ball-handlers. Without any scoring gravity to hold the defense honest, his playmaking attempts were easily telegraphed and disrupted. This refusal to attack the paint severely bogged down the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 22.7m -12.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Intelligent weak-side cutting and timely closeout attacks generated highly efficient offensive possessions. He fortified his positive impact with disciplined team defense (+2.4 Def), consistently making the right low-man rotations. A crucial stretch of deflections in the third quarter perfectly encapsulated his value as a connective piece.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 30.4m -16.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Bricking multiple wide-open perimeter looks cratered his offensive value and allowed the defense to pack the paint. While he fought admirably at the point of attack (+2.5 Def), the inability to space the floor made him a severe liability on the other end. His defender routinely abandoned him to double the post, stalling out multiple half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 17.4m -9.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 10.2m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

A complete lack of offensive involvement kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral. He provided sturdy physical resistance on the defensive end (+1.9 Def), but his reluctance to even look at the rim created spacing nightmares. He functioned strictly as a defensive specialist during his brief rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 10.2m -5.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.0

Utterly terrorized the opposition with a defensive masterclass (+10.9 Def) in a highly condensed stint. His extraordinary length and timing erased multiple shots at the rim and completely shut off driving lanes. This brief but dominant rim-protection clinic single-handedly swung the momentum of the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +77.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +10.9
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 10.1m -5.4
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 5.1m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Instant offensive energy and decisive rim runs yielded a quick burst of positive value. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages by sprinting the floor hard in transition. This short burst of high-percentage finishing provided a brief but meaningful spark to the lineup.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg -109.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 5.1m -2.7
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A rushed, low-quality perimeter attempt defined a highly forgettable garbage-time appearance. He offered zero defensive resistance during his brief time on the floor. The quick hook was justified by a lack of engagement in the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 2.1m -1.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 38.0m
34
pts
21
reb
12
ast
Impact
+24.6

Utterly dismantled the opposing frontcourt through masterful offensive orchestration and elite positional positioning. His massive +33.4 box score impact was heavily insulated by surprisingly stout drop-coverage (+9.1 Def). The sheer gravity of his high-post touches warped the defense, creating a cascade of open weak-side actions.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +33.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +9.1
Raw total +45.1
Avg player in 38.0m -20.5
Impact +24.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 41.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jamal Murray 36.6m
24
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Inefficient isolation attempts and a high volume of missed mid-range pull-ups severely depressed his net impact. While he flashed adequate point-of-attack defense, the wasted offensive possessions outweighed his playmaking contributions. A recurring pattern of over-dribbling against set half-court defenses ultimately torpedoed his overall value.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 36.6m -19.8
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Spencer Jones 34.5m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Strong defensive rotations and relentless floor-burn plays (+3.8 Hustle) anchored his positive net rating. He thrived as a low-usage connector, punishing defensive closeouts from the perimeter without forcing bad looks. His ability to stay attached to off-ball shooters defined his steadying presence.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 34.5m -18.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Peyton Watson 34.5m
15
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Elite weak-side rim protection (+6.1 Def) salvaged an otherwise neutral offensive stint. A pattern of decisive cuts to the basket generated high-value looks, though his limited floor-spacing ability capped his overall ceiling. His length disrupted passing lanes consistently during the second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 34.5m -18.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

A heavy diet of contested perimeter jumpers cratered his efficiency and dragged his overall impact into the red. Giving back points on the defensive end (-0.7 Def) compounded the damage from his streaky shot selection. His tendency to hunt transition threes early in the shot clock stalled out several key offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 32.8m -17.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 26.6m
2
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.8

Offensive passivity completely neutralized his typically disruptive perimeter defense. By refusing to look at the rim, he allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint for others. This lack of scoring gravity turned him into an offensive liability during crucial second-quarter rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 26.6m -14.3
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.0

Hyper-efficient shot-making kept his head above water, but glaring defensive lapses (-2.2 Def) erased those gains entirely. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, bleeding points at the point of attack. His ability to punish late closeouts was perfectly offset by his inability to stay in front of straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense -2.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 16.9m -9.2
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Bleeding value rapidly in limited minutes, his inability to initiate offensive sets led to stagnant, late-clock bailouts. A complete lack of rim pressure allowed the defense to aggressively jump passing lanes. He struggled mightily to navigate high ball screens, leaving the backline exposed on multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total -4.7
Avg player in 10.1m -5.5
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Plodding footwork in pick-and-roll coverage (-1.8 Def) made him a massive target during his brief stint. Opponents relentlessly spammed spread actions to pull him away from the basket, neutralizing his interior presence. His inability to contest perimeter shooters ultimately forced an early trip back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -73.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.8
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 10.0m -5.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3