GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 34.0m
31
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Elite spacing and shot-making were heavily counteracted by defensive lapses and loose ball security. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, leading to blow-by drives that compromised the defensive shell. A tendency to travel or step out of bounds on closeout attacks shaved points off his otherwise stellar offensive output.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 34.0m -19.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Saddiq Bey 31.8m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Bleeding value through careless ball-handling and poor defensive positioning completely overshadowed an otherwise efficient scoring night. He repeatedly bit on pump fakes, surrendering costly shooting fouls that disrupted the team's defensive momentum. A brutal stretch of isolation turnovers in the third quarter directly fueled the opponent's transition attack.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 31.8m -17.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 31.5m
12
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

Forcing the issue into heavy traffic resulted in a barrage of stripped balls and blocked shots that cratered his overall value. Opponents successfully built a wall in the paint, baiting him into offensive fouls when he tried to lower his shoulder. His inability to adapt to the collapsing defensive shell turned high-leverage possessions into empty trips.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 31.5m -17.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derik Queen 28.8m
10
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

Imposing physicality on the interior generated solid defensive metrics, though his impact was muted by sloppy passing out of the post. He anchored the paint effectively, altering several shots at the rim during a crucial second-quarter run. However, telegraphing kick-out passes led to live-ball turnovers that prevented a truly dominant rating.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 28.8m -16.1
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 26.1m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

Disastrous decision-making as a primary ball-handler torpedoed his net impact despite showing flashes of point-of-attack defensive pressure. He consistently drove into crowded lanes without an exit plan, resulting in backbreaking turnovers. Failing to organize the offense against a basic zone scheme defined a highly erratic stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 26.1m -14.5
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Getting hunted in pick-and-roll coverage and committing silly reaching fouls severely damaged his overall value. He failed to navigate screens cleanly, putting the defense in constant rotation and giving up high-value corner looks. Offensively, a lack of off-ball movement made him easy to face-guard, neutralizing his primary weapon as a floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 22.1m -12.3
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jordan Poole 19.8m
16
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Flashy shot creation was nearly negated by a string of careless ball-handling mistakes in the open floor. He provided a necessary scoring punch off the bench but gave it right back by gambling on steals and losing his man back-door. A polarizing stretch of deep pull-up threes followed immediately by unforced turnovers perfectly captured his volatile impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 19.8m -11.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Yves Missi 19.2m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Phenomenal rim deterrence and active hands in the passing lanes kept his impact firmly in the green despite a rough finishing night. He struggled to convert through contact around the basket, leaving several easy points on the board. However, his ability to switch onto guards late in the shot clock salvaged multiple broken defensive sequences.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 19.2m -10.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Completely locked down the paint during his minutes, posting a massive defensive rating by erasing shots from the weak side. His vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection forced opponents to abandon their interior attack entirely. A textbook sequence of denying a lob and immediately sprinting the floor for a transition finish perfectly encapsulated his highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 14.8m -8.2
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Micah Peavy 11.8m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Bricking multiple open perimeter looks allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. While he showed some competence navigating screens defensively, the offensive dead weight was too much to overcome. His hesitation to shoot off the catch stalled the offensive flow and led to shot-clock violations.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -41.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 11.8m -6.6
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 39.3m
31
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.5

Anchored the wing defense with suffocating point-of-attack pressure, generating a massive positive defensive rating. His elite shot-making at the rim was partially offset by a handful of careless transition turnovers that gave points back to the opponent. Still, his ability to blow up opposing pick-and-rolls completely defined the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +24.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.4
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 39.3m -22.0
Impact +15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jamal Murray 37.4m
35
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+21.3

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration drove a dominant two-way performance that dictated the entire flow of the offense. He compounded his elite shot creation with phenomenal hustle, consistently winning 50/50 balls to extend possessions. His ability to hunt mismatches on switches during the fourth quarter broke the opponent's defensive shell completely.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +7.7
Defense +7.8
Raw total +42.2
Avg player in 37.4m -20.9
Impact +21.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Aaron Gordon 29.6m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Settling for low-percentage perimeter looks severely capped his overall value in this matchup. While he provided sturdy weak-side rim protection to boost his defensive metrics, the clunky shot selection bailed out the opposing defense. A prolonged stretch of forced mid-range jumpers in the third quarter prevented him from maximizing his physical advantages.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 29.6m -16.5
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Pickett 29.2m
16
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Blistering perimeter efficiency was completely erased by a disastrous foul rate and sloppy ball security. Repeatedly getting targeted in isolation forced him into bad reaching fouls that put the opponent in the bonus early. The scoring punch was undeniable, but giving the ball away against high pressure negated every bit of his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 29.2m -16.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Spencer Jones 22.5m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.4

Severe offensive hemorrhaging dragged his overall impact deep into the red, fueled by a string of costly live-ball turnovers and poor spacing. His inability to punish closeouts allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint during half-court sets. Despite a few active hustle plays to keep possessions alive, the sheer volume of empty trips proved too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense -1.4
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 22.5m -12.5
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Active hands in passing lanes generated solid hustle metrics, but poor decision-making in transition kept his net impact marginal. He bled value by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock rather than moving the ball. A specific pattern of over-helping on drives left his primary assignment open for backbreaking corner threes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.7
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 32.6m -18.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 24.3m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.5

A lack of offensive aggression and several unforced errors derailed what could have been a steady rotational shift. He consistently passed up open driving lanes, stalling the offense and leading to late-clock turnovers. His inability to navigate through off-ball screens allowed his matchup to dictate the pace of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 24.3m -13.5
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 22.3m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Offensive invisibility and poor finishing around the basket tanked his overall rating despite decent rotational defense. He struggled to establish deep post position, leading to blocked shots and empty possessions. Getting bullied off his spots by heavier bigs in the paint defined a frustrating stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 22.3m -12.5
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Rushed his limited opportunities during a brief stint, firing contested jumpers instead of letting the offense develop. The negative impact stems entirely from wasting possessions with poor shot selection. Failing to execute the defensive scheme on a key baseline out-of-bounds play highlighted his lack of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -116.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0