GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 37.1m
26
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.5

An absolutely dominant two-way performance defined by suffocating defense and highly efficient volume scoring. He dictated the physical terms of the matchup on both ends, elevating his offensive production well above his recent baseline while completely locking down his assignments.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +12.3
Raw total +37.7
Avg player in 37.1m -20.2
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Black 35.5m
21
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.2

Two-way versatility was on full display as he paired sharp perimeter shooting with highly disruptive defensive rotations. His relentless motor consistently generated transition opportunities, making him a catalyst for the team's overall success.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 35.5m -19.3
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 33.8m
13
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.0

Clunky perimeter shooting and forced offensive looks severely hampered his overall rating despite a strong defensive showing. The steep decline in his usual scoring efficiency created empty possessions that the opposition routinely capitalized on.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 33.8m -18.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

A sudden regression in offensive assertiveness snapped a streak of highly efficient outings, pulling his overall rating into the negative. He struggled to find his spots against the interior defense, resulting in a steep scoring drop-off that outweighed his steady defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 28.5m -15.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Franz Wagner 26.7m
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

A high volume of missed interior looks dragged his efficiency down, neutralizing the value of his excellent hustle metrics. While his outside stroke was pure, his inability to finish through traffic at his usual rate kept his overall impact hovering just below zero.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 26.7m -14.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Exceptional defensive instincts completely salvaged what was otherwise a disastrous shooting performance. Even as his offensive production plummeted well below his recent average, his ability to blow up opposing actions kept him firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +10.2
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 21.5m -11.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
Noah Penda 17.6m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Despite enjoying a massive offensive surge compared to his usual microscopic output, minor defensive liabilities kept his overall impact slightly negative. He capitalized on rare scoring opportunities but struggled to consistently impact the game when the ball wasn't in his hands.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 17.6m -9.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

High-energy minutes and efficient situational scoring allowed him to maximize his brief time on the floor. He doubled his usual offensive output while providing a physical spark that disrupted the opponent's interior rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 14.4m -7.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 12.5m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.9

Continued his brutal recent shooting slump, failing to generate any offensive rhythm or floor spacing. The lack of scoring punch combined with negative defensive metrics made him a distinct liability during his time on the court.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 12.5m -6.7
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 12.4m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Solid rim protection and active rebounding in limited minutes drove a highly efficient positive rating. He played strictly within his role, setting bruising screens and anchoring the paint effectively during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 12.4m -6.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
30
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.5

Elite two-way execution drove a massive positive rating, anchored by dominant interior defense and highly efficient multi-level scoring. His ability to stretch the floor while maintaining a heavy offensive workload created consistent mismatch problems for the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.7
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 32.6m -17.7
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jock Landale 29.9m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Despite solid activity on the glass and decent defensive positioning, a sharp drop-off in offensive involvement dragged his overall score into the red. He failed to capitalize on his touches, breaking a streak of highly efficient shooting performances to become a non-factor in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 29.9m -16.2
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 27.4m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Strong perimeter containment and timely closeouts fueled a robust defensive rating that kept his overall impact positive. He maintained his recent offensive rhythm with confident outside shooting, providing reliable secondary spacing throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 27.4m -14.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Cam Spencer 26.9m
7
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+1.1

Elite playmaking completely salvaged a rough shooting night, as his high-level ball distribution generated crucial open looks for teammates. High-effort hustle plays and steady defensive rotations ensured he remained a net positive despite his individual scoring struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 26.9m -14.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 17.8m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

A severe offensive regression tanked his overall impact, as he bricked nearly all of his attempts from the floor while seeing his production plummet well below his recent baseline. Poor shot selection and forced perimeter looks completely overshadowed a mildly positive defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 17.8m -9.7
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 30.3m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Perfect execution from beyond the arc combined with exceptional hustle metrics to drive a sterling overall rating. His relentless energy on loose balls and flawless perimeter spacing forced the defense into impossible rotation choices.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 30.3m -16.5
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
GG Jackson 22.1m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Near-flawless shot selection and perfect perimeter execution fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He capitalized on every touch within the flow of the offense, masking a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 109.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 22.1m -12.0
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.2

Tremendous hustle metrics were ultimately undone by minor defensive lapses and inconsistent shooting. His high motor generated extra possessions, but an inability to string together stops kept his overall impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 20.6m -11.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
John Konchar 18.4m
6
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Low-usage efficiency and fundamentally sound defensive positioning allowed him to post a positive rating in limited action. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead relying on timely rebounding and smart rotations to quietly impact the game.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 18.4m -10.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.3

An absolute offensive zero in this matchup, his inability to connect on any field goal attempts severely handicapped the floor spacing. While his perimeter defense remained respectable, the empty offensive possessions created a massive drag on the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -8.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total -4.9
Avg player in 13.8m -7.4
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3