GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 37.8m
23
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

Leveraged his shooting gravity to bend the defense, creating driving lanes even when his own outside shot wasn't falling. His physical drives and secondary playmaking kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. A solid, workmanlike performance where his sheer offensive threat level generated positive value.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 37.8m -17.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 37.4m
14
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.9

Bogged down the offense with a steady diet of contested mid-range jumpers against set defenses. His inability to finish through contact or draw fouls compounded the inefficiency, leading to empty trips that sparked opponent runs. The heavy negative rating was driven by a stubborn refusal to adapt his shot profile when his primary moves were cut off.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 37.4m -17.3
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Anthony Black 37.3m
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Executed the offense with precision, finding gaps in the defense for high-percentage finishes. Despite his offensive efficiency and active hands in the passing lanes, his impact was muted by getting caught on screens defensively. The neutral rating reflects a balanced outing where his scoring punch was offset by occasional defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 37.3m -17.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Noah Penda 29.9m
5
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Provided excellent energy and defensive versatility, but his lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. He consistently made the right reads on defense, yet his hesitation to shoot stalled out multiple half-court possessions. The overall negative impact stems from his inability to punish the defense for ignoring him.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 29.9m -13.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Anchored the drop coverage effectively, challenging shots at the rim and securing the defensive glass to limit second-chance points. However, his perimeter shooting struggles allowed his matchup to roam freely and disrupt offensive sets. The neutral impact perfectly captures a night where his defensive solidity was counterbalanced by offensive spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.9
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 28.9m -13.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 34.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Found easy buckets by cutting decisively off the ball, capitalizing on the defensive attention drawn by the primary creators. His on-ball defense was aggressive but occasionally led to foul trouble that compromised the team's bonus situation. A highly efficient scoring burst was ultimately neutralized by defensive over-exuberance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 18.6m -8.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tyus Jones 17.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Uncharacteristically failed to organize the second unit, struggling to penetrate the defense and create advantages. His defensive limitations were exposed in isolation matchups, forcing the team into early rotations that led to open looks. A passive offensive approach combined with defensive targetability resulted in a net negative outing.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +6.2
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 17.0m -7.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 11.9m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Completely changed the complexion of the game in a short burst with elite rim protection and vertical spacing. His massive defensive rating was fueled by altering multiple shots at the basket and executing flawless pick-and-roll coverages. The high positive impact showcases how dominant interior defense can swing momentum even without scoring.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -49.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 11.9m -5.4
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Shot the team out of rhythm during a disastrous stint, forcing heavily contested looks early in the clock. His inability to hit the broad side of a barn was compounded by poor transition defense that gave up easy layups. The severe negative impact was a direct result of empty offensive possessions fueling the opponent's fast break.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense -6.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total -6.3
Avg player in 8.6m -4.0
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Provided an immediate defensive jolt, blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions with his elite length and anticipation. His ability to switch across multiple positions stalled the opponent's offensive flow completely. A masterclass in how to generate high positive impact in minimal minutes through sheer defensive disruption.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 7.2m -3.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jamal Cain 5.4m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Looked completely out of sync during his brief run, rushing his offensive reads and blowing defensive assignments. His missed perimeter assignments led directly to back-to-back opponent triples that forced a quick substitution. The sharp negative rating reflects a stint defined by blown coverages rather than his usual efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 5.4m -2.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.5m
6
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.2

A heavy workload exposed his decision-making, as costly live-ball turnovers severely dragged down his overall rating. While he provided solid on-ball defense and secondary playmaking, the negative swings from unforced errors proved too damaging. His offensive hesitation broke the team's rhythm during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 39.5m -18.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyrese Maxey 37.9m
29
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.8

Relentless downhill attacking broke the opposing defense's shell, generating immense value through sheer offensive pressure. His ability to navigate high pick-and-rolls kept the defense scrambling, while his point-of-attack defense was surprisingly disruptive. The high volume of quality shots he created completely overshadowed a few forced attempts.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.5
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 37.9m -17.3
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paul George 33.2m
18
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.8

Despite a brutal perimeter shooting night, his relentless defensive pressure and off-ball activity drove a massive positive impact. He completely disrupted the opponent's wing actions, generating extra possessions through deflections and contested rebounds. The scoring dip was entirely offset by his willingness to do the dirty work on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.1%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +9.3
Defense +9.7
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 33.2m -15.4
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 31.4m
22
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Commanded heavy defensive attention in the post, which opened up the floor despite his own struggles to finish through double-teams. His rim protection remained a steady deterrent, forcing opponents into lower-percentage floaters. The overall impact was solid, anchored by his sheer physical presence rather than his typical scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 31.4m -14.5
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dominick Barlow 24.3m
11
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Capitalized on his touches around the rim to continue a hyper-efficient finishing streak. His offensive positioning consistently created high-percentage looks, though his defensive rotations were merely adequate. The overall positive rating stemmed directly from punishing mismatches in the paint rather than two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 24.3m -11.1
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Faded into the background offensively, failing to apply pressure or exploit defensive rotations. While his perimeter defense remained fundamentally sound, his reluctance to let it fly from deep bogged down the team's spacing. The negative impact reflects a passive outing where he simply didn't leave a footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 28.6m -13.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.2

Dominated the interior during his brief stint, using his massive frame to clear out space and secure crucial extra possessions. His defensive rebounding completely neutralized the opponent's second-chance opportunities. The positive impact was a direct result of his physical imposition in the paint against smaller backup units.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +41.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 16.6m -7.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

An absolute black hole on offense, forcing contested looks early in the shot clock that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His defensive effort couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting performance that completely derailed the second unit's momentum. The severe negative rating is a direct reflection of his poor shot selection and lack of offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 14.6m -6.7
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Made his presence felt entirely through off-ball movement and connective passing in limited action. His willingness to set hard screens and execute timely defensive rotations kept the lineup functioning smoothly. It was a perfect example of a low-usage player driving positive impact by simply executing his role without mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 9.4m -4.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to find the speed of the game during a brief cameo, getting caught out of position on defensive switches. Even with a quick bucket, his inability to string together stops negated any positive momentum. The short stint was defined by defensive miscommunications rather than offensive output.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 4.5m -2.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1