GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.3m
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Live-ball turnovers and poor transition defense severely undercut his perimeter scoring barrage. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts, giving away easy layups that negated his hot shooting from deep. The defensive lapses and sloppy ball security ultimately drove his impact deeply into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 38.3m -24.9
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 36.6m
26
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.5

A high volume of forced shots against set defenses dragged down what could have been a dominant performance. He compensated for the erratic shot selection by aggressively fighting through screens and providing excellent weak-side help defense. Ultimately, the offensive inefficiency nearly canceled out his stellar defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 36.6m -23.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 28.9m
32
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.1

Utterly dismantled the interior defense by establishing deep post position and attacking closeouts with overwhelming force. His gravity in the paint collapsed the defense on nearly every possession, creating a cascade of high-quality looks for the entire roster. Combining this unstoppable rim pressure with disciplined defensive rotations resulted in a massive impact score.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 28.9m -18.8
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Derik Queen 28.5m
7
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.3

An abysmal finishing rate around the basket completely derailed the offense during his minutes. Despite elite rim protection and relentless work on the offensive glass, his inability to convert point-blank putbacks killed multiple possessions. The sheer volume of wasted scoring opportunities heavily outweighed his defensive anchoring.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +4.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 28.5m -18.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 22.2m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.6

A sharp drop in offensive aggression allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. While he battled hard through screens and generated deflections, his hesitation to attack closeouts stalled the half-court offense. This lack of a scoring threat choked the team's spacing, dragging down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 22.2m -14.5
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Poole 25.8m
26
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

A sudden rediscovery of his scoring rhythm completely shifted the momentum of the game. He punished drop coverages with decisive pull-up jumpers, forcing the defense to alter their entire pick-and-roll scheme. This dynamic shot creation broke the opponent's defensive shell, driving a highly productive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 25.8m -16.7
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kevon Looney 24.0m
2
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Masterful positioning on the defensive glass and bruising screens freed up shooters all night. He rarely touched the ball offensively, but his physical box-outs neutralized the opponent's second-chance opportunities. This quiet, dirty-work execution provided a steadying presence that anchored a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 24.0m -15.6
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Yves Missi 14.3m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Struggled to process defensive reads quickly enough, frequently arriving late as the weak-side helper. While he secured a few contested rebounds, his inability to set solid screens left the guards stranded against aggressive traps. These subtle execution failures on both ends resulted in a slightly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 14.3m -9.4
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Failed to find any rhythm as defenders aggressively top-sided him to deny catch-and-shoot opportunities. Unable to shake loose, he became a non-factor in the half-court, effectively turning the offense into a 4-on-5 struggle. The inability to counter this physical coverage led to a highly detrimental impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 11.8m -7.7
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Consistently targeted in isolation, he surrendered straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell. He compounded these defensive struggles by forcing contested runners early in the shot clock, bailing out the opposing defense. This combination of poor shot selection and porous defense tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.5
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 9.7m -6.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 37.1m
23
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite defensive metrics and relentless hustle carried his overall impact despite brutal shooting efficiency. He forced unfavorable matchups on the perimeter, generating deflections that fueled transition opportunities. The sheer volume of bricked jumpers kept his net rating from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +11.9
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 37.1m -24.2
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Brunson 35.5m
28
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+0.1

A heavy offensive burden yielded diminishing returns due to forced isolation attempts late in the shot clock. While he successfully manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to create looks, the sheer number of missed contested floaters neutralized his playmaking value. His defensive limitations at the point of attack kept his net impact hovering right at neutral.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 35.5m -23.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 34.8m
6
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-5.0

Despite flashing high-level playmaking and solid perimeter defense, his reluctance to look for his own shot crippled the team's spacing. Defenders sagged off him entirely, clogging the paint and stalling half-court sets. The lack of offensive aggression negated the value of his passing, dragging his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 34.8m -22.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

Offensive passivity limited his ceiling, as he deferred too often against smaller defenders in the post. However, his positional discipline on the glass and timely rim contests anchored the interior. He effectively traded scoring volume for defensive stability, resulting in a modest positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 30.0m -19.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Mohamed Diawara 17.8m
18
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.5

An unexpected scoring explosion from the perimeter completely broke the opponent's defensive shell. His pristine shot selection maximized every touch, punishing late rotations with deadly accuracy from deep. This sudden offensive gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, heavily driving his elite net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.9
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 17.8m -11.6
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Aggressive point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation, setting a gritty tone for the second unit. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by confidently stepping into transition threes, punishing scrambled matchups. This two-way surge provided a crucial momentum swing that heavily boosted his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 18.4m -12.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Hot perimeter shooting masked a series of costly missed rotations on the defensive end. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-pop actions, struggling to close out on shooters or recover to the paint. Giving up easy layups and open looks completely erased the value of his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 15.9m -10.4
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Stagnant ball movement defined his stint on the floor, as he frequently stopped the offense to hunt contested mid-range jumpers. Even when the shots fell, the lack of offensive flow allowed the opposing defense to easily reset. A handful of ill-advised gambles in the passing lanes further compromised the team's defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 13.2m -8.6
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 12.2m
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.8

While he orchestrated the offense reasonably well, a physical mismatch at the point of attack made him a liability on defense. Bigger guards consistently backed him down, forcing the defense into early rotations that led to open corner threes. His passing vision simply couldn't outpace the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 12.2m -8.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Invisible on the offensive end, he failed to set meaningful screens or present a lob threat during his minutes. Opposing bigs completely ignored him in the dunker spot, allowing them to freely roam and disrupt driving lanes. This lack of offensive gravity severely bogged down the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 11.7m -7.5
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

High-energy closeouts and active hands generated solid hustle metrics, but he struggled to find his footing within the offensive scheme. He frequently drifted into occupied spaces, clogging driving lanes and disrupting the spacing. A few poorly timed fouls on jump shooters kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 9.0m -5.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided a brief but effective physical presence in the paint during a short rotation stint. He sealed his man perfectly on a crucial possession to open up a driving lane, showing excellent spatial awareness. This fundamental execution in limited action resulted in a marginally positive net score.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 4.4m -3.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0