GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 40.6m
20
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.9

Elite weak-side rim deterrence and active hands in the passing lanes anchored his massive defensive rating. However, sloppy ball-handling in traffic and forced passes into tight windows gave away critical possessions, dragging his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.3
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 40.6m -23.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Anthony Black 39.9m
25
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.9

Relentless downhill attacking drew a massive volume of fouls, generating highly efficient trips to the charity stripe. His ability to absorb contact and force defensive rotations completely offset his struggles from the perimeter, driving a stellar offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 14/14 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +5.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 39.9m -22.8
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Desmond Bane 36.4m
32
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Blistering perimeter efficiency absolutely torched drop coverages and late contests. His elite shot-making gravity warped the defense entirely, opening up driving lanes for his teammates while he carried the scoring load.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +26.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 36.4m -20.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.2

Dominant interior positioning and decisive finishing punished smaller defenders in the paint. He controlled the restricted area on both ends, setting bruising screens that consistently freed up the guards.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +25.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 34.9m -20.0
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 33.2m
14
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+2.6

Tenacious point-of-attack defense and elite connective passing salvaged a rough shooting night. He constantly disrupted passing lanes and pushed the pace, ensuring the offense hummed even when his own floater wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.7
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 33.2m -18.9
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Defensive miscommunications and slow closeouts on the perimeter allowed open looks that erased his modest offensive contributions. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, making him a frequent target in the opponent's motion offense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.2m -12.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

A complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely sag off and double-team the primary ball-handlers. Despite his usual length on defense, he was frequently caught out of position on closeouts, failing to make a positive dent in his limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 13.1m -7.5
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Tyus Jones 10.3m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to easily penetrate the paint and collapse the scheme. Without his usual playmaking rhythm to compensate, his brief stint became a distinct vulnerability that bled points.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 10.3m -5.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Noah Penda 6.5m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Active hands and solid weak-side rotations provided a brief defensive spark for the second unit. However, his complete inability to generate an offensive threat stalled out the team's momentum on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 6.5m -3.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

He was immediately targeted in space by quicker guards, bleeding points in drop coverage. The short leash was justified as he failed to establish any physical presence inside to offset the defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -128.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 35.6m
19
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.0

His versatility on the defensive end disrupted the opponent's flow, generating crucial stops. Paired with efficient interior finishing, his two-way effort anchored the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +8.3
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 35.6m -20.3
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 35.4m
35
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Exceptional scoring efficiency from deep and the mid-range fueled his massive offensive rating. He completely overwhelmed his primary defenders, creating high-quality looks that spiked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 13/23 (56.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 35.4m -20.2
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite rim deterrence and timely weak-side rotations defined his highly impactful minutes on the defensive end. While his offensive volume was modest, his ability to contest shots vertically without fouling kept his overall rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +9.6
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 33.3m -19.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
13
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.7

Inefficient shot creation and a tendency to over-dribble late in the clock severely hampered his overall effectiveness. He struggled to break down his primary matchup in isolation, leading to contested heaves that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 33.0m -18.9
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 31.1m
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.7

Poor perimeter shot selection from beyond the arc dragged down his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to pack the paint. The inability to stretch the floor stalled out half-court possessions during his shifts, neutralizing his otherwise solid slashing efforts.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 31.1m -17.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Value came entirely from off-ball movement and connective passing rather than scoring execution. By keeping the offense flowing and securing critical loose balls, he managed to stay net-positive despite a frigid shooting night from the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 24.0m -13.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 21.3m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

A lack of offensive aggression rendered him a non-threat on the perimeter, allowing defenders to sag off and clog driving lanes. His inability to dictate the tempo in the half-court ultimately dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 21.3m -12.2
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Ruthless efficiency on limited touches maximized his offensive footprint. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive cuts and spot-up execution, providing a crucial scoring punch in a condensed role.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +40.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 15.8m -9.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Failing to generate any gravity on the perimeter, his brief stint actively hurt the team's spacing. He was completely neutralized by physical closeouts, rendering his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense -2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 7.4m -4.2
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A complete non-factor during his brief rotation. He failed to register any meaningful defensive stops or offensive pressure, making his stint a net negative for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1