GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.0m
34
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.5

Delivered a masterclass in two-way dominance, punishing late closeouts while completely locking down the perimeter on defense. His aggressive shot profile stretched the floor horizontally, opening up massive driving lanes for his teammates. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he generated made him the most impactful player on the court.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +27.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.1
Raw total +38.4
Avg player in 38.0m -20.9
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jeremiah Fears 30.1m
7
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

Shot selection was his undoing, as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range jumpers early in the possession. These empty trips allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, severely damaging his net rating despite decent hustle metrics. He failed to adjust his approach when his primary moves were scouted and walled off.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 26.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 30.1m -16.6
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 29.8m
25
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.4

Bullied his primary matchups with an unstoppable combination of downhill force and soft touch at the rim. Beyond his hyper-efficient finishing, his defensive engagement was spectacular, consistently blowing up pick-and-rolls before they materialized. He dictated the physical terms of the game from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 29.8m -16.3
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Saddiq Bey 26.1m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Struggled to find his usual scoring rhythm, clanking multiple open looks that stalled offensive momentum. However, he salvaged a neutral overall impact by digging in on the defensive end and executing flawless weak-side rotations. His willingness to battle through screens prevented his shooting woes from sinking the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 26.1m -14.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 16.3m
4
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.8

Showcased how to positively impact a game without making a single basket. His elite rim deterrence and relentless energy on loose balls completely disrupted the opponent's interior rhythm. He essentially traded offensive zeroes for massive defensive stops, keeping his team afloat during gritty stretches.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 16.3m -8.9
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Yves Missi 34.1m
12
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.7

Shattered his recent offensive baseline by outworking everyone in the painted area. His relentless motor created crucial second-chance opportunities, while his vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse on every pick-and-roll dive. He anchored the interior with a level of physicality that the opposition simply could not match.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +4.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 34.1m -18.7
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing by strictly taking what the defense conceded. His disciplined positioning on both ends of the floor minimized mistakes and provided a stabilizing presence for the second unit. He executed his role perfectly, setting bruising screens and rolling with purpose.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 18.0m -9.9
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Jordan Poole 17.5m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Erratic decision-making and off-balance shot attempts continued to plague his offensive rhythm. His inability to break down the primary defender led to stalled possessions and live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's fast break. The lack of defensive resistance further compounded his highly negative stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 17.5m -9.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Crashed back to earth after a scorching shooting stretch, failing to connect on any of his perimeter attempts. The offense stagnated whenever he tried to shoot his way out of the slump, allowing the defense to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. His lack of secondary playmaking made him a severe liability when the jumper vanished.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 15.3m -8.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Defensive lapses and poor closeouts allowed his assignments to find easy rhythm from the perimeter. While he didn't force the issue offensively, his inability to navigate screens compromised the team's entire defensive shell. The steep negative impact reflects how often he was successfully targeted in isolation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 14.8m -8.1
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BKN Brooklyn Nets
20
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Heavy shot volume with poor efficiency severely damaged his overall impact. His perimeter-heavy shot selection yielded a barrage of misses, leading to long rebounds and transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite decent baseline production, his negative off-ball value and defensive positioning cratered his net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 31.9m -17.4
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 31.1m
6
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.8

Strong rotational defense and active hands on the glass couldn't salvage a negative net impact. He continued a troubling offensive pattern from his last five games, bricking all of his perimeter looks and stalling half-court momentum. The lack of floor spacing allowed defenders to pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 31.1m -17.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 28.9m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Interior defensive presence and solid rim contests were completely overshadowed by costly hidden mistakes. His negative overall impact suggests severe issues with illegal screens or live-ball turnovers that derailed offensive possessions. He failed to capitalize on his usual high-efficiency finishing, struggling to anchor the middle during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 28.9m -15.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 28.9m
17
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite perimeter shot-making stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. He combined lethal outside execution with disciplined closeouts on the other end, driving a highly positive net rating. His ability to punish drop coverage consistently dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 28.9m -15.9
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Drake Powell 24.2m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Broke out of a recent shooting slump by attacking closeouts with decisive, aggressive drives. His shot selection was significantly sharper than his recent averages, maximizing his touches without forcing bad looks. Solid positional defense ensured his offensive explosion translated directly to a highly positive team margin.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 24.2m -13.3
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 23.8m
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.2

Escaped his recent scoring drought, but the sheer volume of isolation attempts disrupted the team's offensive flow. A heavy dose of missed field goals and likely defensive miscommunications dragged his overall impact into the red. He hunted his own shot against set defenses rather than moving the ball to open shooters.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 23.8m -13.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.6

Dominated the painted area with relentless physicality and elite finishing around the basket. His ability to seal defenders early in the shot clock created high-percentage looks that anchored the second unit's offense. Clean defensive rotations and minimal foul trouble allowed him to maximize his minutes perfectly.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 19.1m -10.5
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Nolan Traore 19.1m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.7

A disastrous stint defined by forced perimeter shots and a complete inability to stay in front of his man. He compounded his ongoing shooting slump by taking contested jumpers early in the clock, fueling opponent transition runs. The massive negative impact reflects a player who was targeted relentlessly on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.4
Raw total -4.2
Avg player in 19.1m -10.5
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Terance Mann 16.9m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Extreme passivity on offense allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team other ball handlers. While he didn't force bad shots, his reluctance to attack closeouts completely bogged down the half-court spacing. The steep negative rating stems from being an offensive non-factor during critical momentum shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 16.9m -9.2
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 16.1m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Overcame a quiet scoring night by doing the dirty work in the trenches. His active hands in passing lanes and strong box-outs neutralized the opponent's interior size advantage. He proved that high-IQ rotational defense can salvage a positive impact even when the jumper isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 16.1m -9.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0