GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 34.9m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

A brutal perimeter shooting slump completely overshadowed a phenomenal defensive effort. He repeatedly short-circuited offensive possessions by launching contested early-clock triples, failing to recognize when to attack closeouts. The sheer volume of empty offensive trips sank his overall impact despite his excellent work navigating screens on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.4
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 34.9m -19.1
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Saddiq Bey 28.7m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Heavy reliance on drawing fouls salvaged what was otherwise a highly inefficient shooting night from the floor. He forced several contested looks in traffic, nearly erasing the positive value of his defensive rotations. Ultimately, his ability to manufacture trips to the charity stripe kept his net impact hovering just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 28.7m -15.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derik Queen 23.1m
5
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.9

Passing up open looks at the rim to force complicated interior feeds ultimately dragged his net score into the red. While his defensive positioning was solid, his reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. This passive approach broke his recent trend of offensive assertiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.1m -12.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jeremiah Fears 20.1m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.8

Relentless ball pressure and excellent gap discipline fueled a highly productive overall impact. He consistently blew up the opponent's pick-and-roll actions, generating transition opportunities through sheer hustle. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his two-way motor dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 20.1m -11.0
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 14.7m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A shocking lack of aggression in the paint resulted in a highly uncharacteristic negative impact. Opposing defenders successfully walled off his driving lanes, forcing him to pass out of his usual attack zones and drastically reducing his scoring footprint compared to recent outings. Without his typical rim gravity, the offense stagnated during his limited minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 14.7m -8.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Poole 27.9m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

Disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc completely tanked his net impact for the night. He continually forced off-balance, isolation jumpers against set defenses, feeding into a brutal shooting slump rather than moving the ball. The resulting long rebounds ignited opponent fast breaks, compounding the damage of his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.3%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 27.9m -15.3
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 26.7m
17
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.9

An absolute defensive masterclass and a shocking offensive eruption produced a team-high impact score. He completely locked down his primary assignment on the perimeter while aggressively punishing closeouts on the other end. This performance shattered his recent offensive slump, driven by decisive cuts and highly confident spot-up shooting.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +12.6
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 26.7m -14.7
Impact +18.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
Yves Missi 26.4m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

A lack of offensive involvement kept his overall impact hovering near neutral despite excellent rim protection. He was frequently ignored in the pick-and-roll, leading to stagnant offensive stretches where his vertical spacing went unused. While his defensive anchoring was superb, the inability to punish switches on the other end limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 26.4m -14.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Poor pick-and-roll coverage and late rim rotations severely penalized his overall impact. Opposing guards routinely targeted his drop coverage, generating uncontested floaters that negated his efficient offensive touches. His inability to anchor the paint defensively cut his minutes short and ended his streak of highly effective two-way performances.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 14.3m -7.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Scraping for loose balls and generating extra possessions through pure effort defined this highly effective short stint. He didn't need offensive touches to leave his mark, instead focusing on crashing the glass and disrupting passing lanes. His high-motor energy provided a noticeable spark to the second unit's transition game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 13.1m -7.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevon Looney 10.1m
4
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Dominant positional rebounding in limited minutes drove a highly efficient net impact. He sealed off opposing bigs with textbook box-outs, ensuring the defense finished stops without surrendering second-chance opportunities. His veteran discipline in the screen game created wide-open driving lanes that didn't show up in his personal stat line.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 10.1m -5.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Tobias Harris 30.5m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.2

A steep drop-off in shot quality and finishing at the rim cratered his overall impact. He settled for contested mid-range looks rather than attacking the paint, breaking his recent streak of highly efficient scoring. Despite marginal positive contributions in hustle and defense, the empty offensive possessions were too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 30.5m -16.8
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 29.8m
20
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.3

Utter dominance in the painted area drove a spectacular net impact, anchored by elite defensive positioning. He bullied opposing bigs for deep post position all night, continuing a dominant stretch of hyper-efficient interior finishing. His physical presence deterred drives and secured crucial defensive stops down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.6
Raw total +36.6
Avg player in 29.8m -16.3
Impact +20.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 29.4m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive limitations in isolation matchups ultimately dragged his net impact slightly into the red despite solid floor-spacing metrics. Opponents successfully targeted him on switches during key stretches, neutralizing the value of his perimeter gravity. His off-ball movement generated quality looks, but the defensive bleed outpaced his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 29.4m -16.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ausar Thompson 28.3m
12
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.1

Relentless defensive rotations and high-motor activity around the rim fueled a massive positive impact. He capitalized on his scoring opportunities efficiently, showing an aggressive streak that broke his recent low-volume pattern. Generating extra possessions through sheer hustle masked any minor spacing limitations.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 28.3m -15.5
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniss Jenkins 26.6m
17
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.5

Errant decision-making in the half-court offense undercut an otherwise stellar defensive showing. He forced several heavily contested perimeter shots late in the shot clock, stalling the team's momentum. While his point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's rhythm, the offensive inefficiency kept his overall impact negative.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 26.6m -14.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Settling for above-the-break triples rather than operating in the pick-and-roll dragged his overall impact into negative territory. While his physical post defense successfully neutralized interior threats, the empty offensive possessions stalled the team's scoring runs. His inability to punish mismatches inside ultimately outweighed his defensive grit.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 23.9m -13.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.9

A barrage of ill-advised, early-clock jumpers severely damaged his offensive efficiency and overall score. He failed to generate rim pressure, bailing out the defense by chucking contested perimeter looks. Despite a slight uptick in his scoring volume compared to recent outings, the sheer number of wasted possessions hurt the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 20.8m -11.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 18.3m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

Disjointed defensive rotations and a lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a highly damaging net score. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy layups that killed defensive momentum. The low-volume perimeter settling failed to pressure the rim, making it a highly ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 18.3m -10.1
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Disciplined shot selection allowed him to break out of a recent efficiency slump and post a positive overall impact. He stayed within his role, making timely defensive reads and avoiding the forced drives that have plagued him lately. A key sequence of back-to-back deflections highlighted a solid, mistake-free performance.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 18.3m -10.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.6

High-voltage energy off the bench translated into a massive impact in limited action. He blew up multiple dribble hand-offs on the perimeter, instantly converting those stops into transition opportunities. Perfect execution of his role—taking only high-value shots and wreaking havoc defensively—defined this stellar stint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 14.2m -7.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1