GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Anthony Black 39.9m
16
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.1

Elite hustle metrics and relentless point-of-attack defense kept his massive workload from becoming a negative. He generated extra possessions through deflections and offensive rebounding, offsetting any minor inefficiencies in the half-court. His ability to fight through screens was the defining feature of his nearly 40-minute shift.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 39.9m -20.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 38.5m
27
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Bullying smaller defenders in the mid-post and stretching the floor with timely triples drove a highly productive offensive night. He elevated his recent scoring baseline by drawing contact and finishing through traffic, anchoring the primary unit's attack. His sheer physical presence forced the defense into constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 38.5m -20.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 38.4m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Hidden negatives like live-ball turnovers and poor transition defense dragged his overall rating into the red despite him scoring at his usual efficient clip. He generated solid half-court offense, but the opponent consistently mounted scoring runs during his shifts. His struggles to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack proved costly.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 38.4m -20.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

A sudden loss of shooting touch derailed his overall impact, snapping a streak of highly efficient offensive outings. While he remained a stout deterrent at the rim with excellent defensive metrics, his insistence on taking contested perimeter jumpers stalled out multiple possessions. The offense bogged down whenever he operated above the break.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 29.8m -15.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 24.4m
9
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.1

Defensive miscommunications and a passive offensive approach resulted in a steep impact crater. He passed up several open looks to force the ball into traffic, dipping well below his recent scoring standards. Opposing guards routinely beat him backdoor, exposing his tendency to ball-watch on the weak side.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 24.4m -12.8
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

A complete offensive disappearing act torpedoed his impact score, as he failed to score a single basket despite his highly productive stretch over the past week. He looked hesitant to pull the trigger against closeouts, allowing the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. This lack of gravity severely cramped the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 19.9m -10.4
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 15.9m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Clunky offensive execution and forced shots in the half-court led to a dismal overall rating. While he technically improved upon his abysmal recent scoring trends, his inability to finish through contact resulted in empty possessions and long rebounds. The opposition consistently used his missed jumpers to ignite their transition game.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 15.9m -8.2
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Errant shot selection from beyond the arc punished his overall rating during a brief stint on the floor. He abandoned the high-percentage interior looks that defined his recent games, settling instead for contested long-range jumpers. Though he scrapped hard for loose balls, the wasted offensive possessions were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 15.1m -7.8
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

Pure chaotic energy and relentless rim attacks fueled a massive positive impact in limited action. Even though his perimeter shot wasn't falling, he battered the offensive glass and drew fouls at a staggering rate to shatter his recent scoring averages. He completely overwhelmed the opposing backup bigs with his physicality.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 43.8%
Net Rtg -45.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 12.9m -6.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Total domination of the defensive glass during a brief cameo provided a quick, positive jolt to the lineup. He swallowed up every available rebound to limit the opponent to one shot per possession, masking his struggles to finish around the rim. His stint successfully stabilized the paint while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 5.3m -2.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
36
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+9.6

Relentless downhill attacking defined this performance, shattering his recent scoring averages through sheer volume and aggression. Even with a cold night from beyond the arc, his ability to consistently collapse the defense and finish in traffic drove massive positive value. He dictated the tempo of the game from the opening tip by punishing drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 15/30 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 39.8%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 37.6m -19.6
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Evan Mobley 34.5m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Offensive struggles heavily dragged down his overall rating, as a barrage of missed jumpers broke his streak of highly efficient performances. While his interior defense remained sturdy, the sheer volume of wasted possessions on the perimeter stifled the team's momentum. He settled for contested looks rather than attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 34.5m -18.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 32.3m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

A stark contrast between offensive production and defensive liability resulted in a slightly negative overall score. While he found a rhythm from deep to shatter his recent scoring averages, poor defensive rotations and a lack of loose-ball recoveries gave those points right back. Opponents consistently targeted his flat-footed closeouts in isolation sequences.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 32.3m -17.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dean Wade 25.9m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.2

Flawless shot execution and suffocating defensive rotations fueled a massive positive impact on the floor. Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, he capitalized on every spot-up opportunity without forcing the issue. His perimeter containment completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow and generated transition chances.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +11.7
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 25.9m -13.6
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jarrett Allen 24.8m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Anchored the interior with elite rim protection, generating a robust defensive rating despite taking a backseat offensively. Though his scoring volume dropped significantly from recent outings, his selective finishing and high-motor hustle plays kept his overall impact firmly in the green. He played within the flow of the offense perfectly by setting crushing screens.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 24.8m -13.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Defensive breakdowns completely erased the value of his unexpected perimeter shooting surge. While he provided great energy on the glass and hit timely spot-up threes, missed assignments in pick-and-roll coverage bled points. Opposing guards routinely exploited his drop coverage for uncontested floaters.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense -2.5
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 25.0m -13.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 24.6m
6
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Smart positional defense and quick hands in the passing lanes kept his impact afloat despite a minimal offensive workload. He operated primarily as a floor-spacer and connector, rarely forcing action but keeping the ball moving. His ability to blow up dribble handoffs on the perimeter was a subtle but crucial factor in stalling the opponent.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 24.6m -12.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Despite converting his few attempts to break a recent slump, his overall impact cratered during his minutes on the floor. A lack of off-ball gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint, stalling the second-unit offense. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, leading to easy perimeter looks for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 15.3m -8.0
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

High-energy rim runs and physical box-outs defined a brief but active stint off the bench. Although his touch around the basket abandoned him compared to recent games, his relentless motor on 50/50 balls prevented his overall impact from dipping into the red. He sacrificed his body on several hard screens to free up shooters.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +65.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 10.2m -5.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.4

An explosive offensive sparkplug performance yielded a staggering positive impact in under ten minutes of action. He punished the defense with flawless shot execution, capitalizing on every catch-and-shoot opportunity to double his recent scoring production. This brief, high-octane stretch completely shifted the momentum of the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 9.8m -5.1
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0