GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 32.1m
21
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.4

Ruthless efficiency from all three levels drove a massive box impact (+18.2). He punished defenders for going under screens and consistently made the right reads when chased off the line. This high-level shot selection and steady offensive orchestration were the engine for his team's success.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 32.1m -15.9
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paolo Banchero 29.7m
23
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.3

Bully-ball drives and timely foul-drawing anchored a highly efficient offensive showing. He paired his scoring gravity with excellent defensive awareness (+5.5), consistently disrupting passing lanes and protecting the weak side. This dual-threat performance dictated the tempo and kept his team in control while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg -45.4
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 29.7m -14.7
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Anthony Black 27.6m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-18.2

Offensive impact cratered due to an abysmal shooting night where he forced heavily contested looks at the rim. His inability to finish inside allowed the defense to sag off, entirely clogging the half-court spacing. Compounding the issue, his defensive rotations were a step slow, leading to a catastrophic -18.2 total rating.

Shooting
FG 1/11 (9.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total -4.6
Avg player in 27.6m -13.6
Impact -18.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Stepping away from the paint proved costly, as his missed perimeter shots snapped a streak of highly efficient interior performances. He struggled to anchor the glass or deter drivers, allowing opponents to capitalize on his offensive misfires. The sharp decline in his scoring gravity ultimately resulted in a net-negative shift.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 20.0m -10.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

A severe regression in shooting accuracy completely derailed his offensive value, dragging his total impact deep into the red. While he competed hard on the defensive end (+3.7), his inability to convert open perimeter looks stalled out multiple possessions. This sharp drop-off from his recent scoring tear severely handicapped the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 18.8m -9.4
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.4

Poor shot selection and a complete lack of playmaking severely handicapped the offense while he was on the court. He failed to generate any defensive resistance to offset his shooting woes, leading to a bleeding of points during his rotation. The game simply moved too fast for him to establish any sort of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -35.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 23.5m -11.6
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 18.8m
13
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.0

A miraculous turnaround from a brutal shooting slump saw him execute flawlessly on offense. He didn't just score efficiently; his active hands and quick closeouts generated a +4.5 defensive rating that suffocated opposing wings. This unexpected two-way dominance provided a massive, momentum-shifting boost off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 18.8m -9.3
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jett Howard 18.2m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Confident perimeter shooting forced defenders to stick to him, opening up driving lanes for his teammates. He supplemented his scoring bump with excellent hustle (+3.3), diving for loose balls and keeping possessions alive. This combination of spacing gravity and high-motor play solidified a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 18.2m -9.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 16.0m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Settling for low-percentage floaters and contested threes tanked his offensive efficiency. He failed to organize the offense or generate high-quality looks for his teammates, leading to stagnant possessions. This lack of table-setting and poor shooting rhythm resulted in a heavily negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 16.0m -7.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.5

An explosive scoring surge completely flipped the script on his recent quiet stretch. He capitalized on defensive mismatches in the post and stretched the floor effectively, all while bringing exceptional energy (+3.0 hustle) to the second unit. This high-octane offensive burst was the catalyst for his stellar +8.5 net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 15.1m -7.5
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Goga Bitadze 11.5m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Total offensive invisibility limited his ability to positively influence the game. He failed to attempt a single shot and provided minimal rim protection, allowing the opposition to play comfortably during his minutes. His passive approach resulted in a slight negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 11.5m -5.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jamal Cain 4.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A sudden, drastic reduction in minutes and usage snapped his streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He failed to register a single positive event during his brief stint, looking completely out of sync with the offensive flow. The team struggled defensively while he was out there, compounding his invisible offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 4.4m -2.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Defensive deterrence was the sole driver of his positive impact during a very brief cameo. He didn't look at the basket offensively, instead focusing entirely on quick passing and blowing up pick-and-rolls on the other end. His sheer length and rotational awareness stabilized the defense long enough to notch a green net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 4.4m -2.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 30.4m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

A sharp departure from his recent efficient scoring tear dragged down his overall net rating. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers resulted in empty possessions that killed offensive momentum. Even with decent defensive metrics, his inability to find a rhythm offensively cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +48.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 30.4m -15.2
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 28.2m
16
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.3

Perimeter efficiency bounced back nicely, as he knocked down half of his looks from deep to stretch the opposing defense. He paired this improved shot selection with active defensive rotations (+3.5), ensuring his playmaking wasn't undone by lapses on the other end. The result was a steady, balanced performance that kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.2m -13.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 27.6m
13
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

Despite a rough shooting night from the perimeter, his impact stayed afloat due to elite defensive engagement (+6.2). He crashed the glass relentlessly to generate extra possessions, masking his inefficiency from deep. This gritty two-way effort offset a slight scoring dip compared to his recent averages.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +33.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 27.6m -13.6
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 27.2m
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

Shot creation inside the arc drove his positive impact, even as his three-point stroke failed to connect consistently. He leveraged his length effectively on the other end, generating a +4.0 defensive rating that kept his overall value solidly in the green. His ability to pivot to mid-range scoring when the deep ball wasn't falling showcased vital offensive maturity.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 27.2m -13.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 16.0m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Flawless shot selection around the rim continues to be his calling card, extending his streak of hyper-efficient performances. He operated perfectly within his role as a finisher and lob threat, refusing to force bad looks. This low-mistake approach in limited minutes provided a highly stabilized interior presence.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +45.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 16.0m -8.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Perfect execution on his limited interior touches wasn't enough to overcome broader rotational struggles while he was on the floor. Despite a strong defensive rating (+3.8) and a notable scoring bump from his average, the team bled points during his shifts. His lack of playmaking connectivity ultimately isolated him from the broader offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 88.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 27.4m -13.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
19
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.9

Absolute dominance in efficiency and defensive pressure fueled a massive +15.9 total impact. He hunted high-quality looks to perfection, refusing to miss from beyond the arc while terrorizing ball-handlers on the other end (+6.2 Def). This was a masterclass in maximizing two-way value without needing to dominate the ball for heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +4.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 22.5m -11.2
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 19.8m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Low usage and minimal defensive disruption kept him from moving the needle in either direction. While he managed to find the bottom of the net slightly more often than his recent slump suggested, his overall passivity allowed opponents to dictate the tempo during his minutes. He simply didn't generate enough events to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +51.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 19.8m -9.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.3

Lethal spot-up shooting stretched the floor beautifully, punishing defensive rotations every time he was left open. His flawless execution from the perimeter was the primary driver of his +12.7 box impact, masking a relatively quiet night in the hustle categories. He capitalized on every given opportunity, providing a crucial scoring punch off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 17.6m -8.8
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 16.2m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A massive leap in shooting efficiency provided a brief offensive spark, but a total lack of rebounding or playmaking limited his overall footprint. He operated strictly as a spot-up spacer, offering decent perimeter defense but failing to impact the game in transition. Consequently, his net rating hovered right around neutral despite perfect marksmanship from deep.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +42.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 16.2m -8.0
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Barely saw the floor long enough to break a sweat, rendering his statistical footprint virtually non-existent. A single missed shot and some mild defensive activity resulted in a flatline impact score. He was essentially a placeholder during his brief rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 4.4m -2.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Garbage time minutes offered zero opportunity to influence the game's outcome. He recorded no counting stats and generated zero hustle events, leading to a slightly negative total due to the team yielding points during his brief appearance. A complete non-factor in the grand scheme of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.6m -1.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0