GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Zion Williamson 30.7m
35
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.1

Absolute interior dominance drove a staggering +22.1 net impact, as nobody could stop his downhill drives. Generating relentless paint touches completely warped the opponent's defensive shell while he simultaneously anchored his own end with heavy rim contests.

Shooting
FG 15/26 (57.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 37.7%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +28.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +9.7
Raw total +40.2
Avg player in 30.7m -18.1
Impact +22.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jordan Poole 29.8m
16
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.5

Reckless shot selection completely tanked his value, resulting in a brutal -11.5 net score. The scoring bump was entirely hollow, as a barrage of errant perimeter jumpers and forced drives actively hurt the team.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -2.4
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 29.8m -17.5
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 29.2m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Attacking the midrange yielded solid scoring numbers, but failing to stretch the floor cramped the half-court offense. Despite active defensive hands, hidden costs like poorly timed fouls or turnovers dragged him slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 29.2m -17.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Bryce McGowens 24.4m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Opportunistic shot selection from the perimeter kept his offensive efficiency high. Strong hustle metrics (+4.5) balanced out defensive lapses to keep his overall impact just above water.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -54.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 24.4m -14.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Yves Missi 20.9m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Thrived as a low-usage rim protector, generating a robust +7.7 defensive rating by consistently altering shots in the paint. He didn't need offensive touches to leave a highly positive imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.7
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 20.9m -12.4
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Kevon Looney 24.3m
4
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.3

Mastered the dirty work to post an elite +11.3 overall impact without needing plays called for him. Securing extra possessions on the glass and executing flawless defensive coverages made him the ultimate glue guy.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.8
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 24.3m -14.4
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Micah Peavy 23.6m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

An absolute nightmare of an offensive shift (-10.2 total) defined by bricking multiple wide-open perimeter looks. Even a respectable +3.4 hustle rating couldn't salvage a performance where he was an active detriment to floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 23.6m -13.9
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.8

Completely vanished on the offensive end, failing to convert a single attempt which led to a disastrous -13.8 overall impact. His usual point-of-attack disruption couldn't compensate for being a total non-threat with the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 20.5m -12.1
Impact -13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Surgical efficiency around the basket continued his hot streak and fueled a highly productive +6.9 net rating. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown, punishing mismatches without forcing a single bad shot.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 20.0m -11.7
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-17.9

A catastrophic shooting slump completely derailed his minutes, resulting in a team-worst -17.9 net score. Firing blanks from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off, which entirely stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -9.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total -8.2
Avg player in 16.5m -9.7
Impact -17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 38.4m
34
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+10.5

An aggressive scoring mentality fueled a massive +29.7 box score impact, easily his most dominant offensive showing of the recent stretch. While his defensive metrics were relatively quiet, his sheer volume of high-quality shot creation and downhill pressure carried the team.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +29.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 38.4m -22.6
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 33.7m
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

Settling exclusively for perimeter jumpers severely limited his offensive ceiling, as a barrage of missed triples dragged down his overall efficiency. Even with solid hustle metrics, the inability to pressure the rim resulted in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 33.7m -19.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 31.0m
23
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Empty calories defined this outing, as his scoring volume masked a damaging -3.6 net impact. Poor perimeter shot selection and a lack of defensive resistance completely erased the value of his isolation buckets.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 31.0m -18.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 29.5m
11
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

Anchored the paint with a towering presence that yielded a massive +18.9 box score impact. Controlling the glass and altering shots around the rim drove a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 29.5m -17.4
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kris Murray 26.0m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Despite a brutal shooting night that cratered his offensive output, he managed a positive overall impact through sheer defensive persistence (+9.8). His value came entirely from blowing up actions off the ball rather than finding the bottom of the net.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +30.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.8
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 26.0m -15.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
Caleb Love 27.6m
22
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Catching fire from beyond the arc completely transformed his offensive profile compared to recent outings. The barrage of perimeter makes generated a +16.1 box impact, though a lack of defensive playmaking kept his net score grounded.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 27.6m -16.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 19.5m
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Errant shooting heavily penalized his overall score despite a commendable +6.4 defensive rating. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions on one end but gave the value right back with forced shots on the other.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.4
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 19.5m -11.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Kept his offensive role incredibly narrow, taking only high-percentage looks around the basket to maintain his efficient streak. However, his limited minutes and low usage rate kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 18.5m -10.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 14.3m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Continuing a recent trend of offensive passivity, his inability to threaten the defense resulted in a sluggish -5.2 net rating. He floated on the perimeter without putting any meaningful pressure on the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 14.3m -8.5
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A brief cameo resulted in a sharp negative impact due to an empty offensive possession. There simply wasn't enough floor time to establish any rhythm or defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 1.6m -1.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1