GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 31.8m
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.0

Exceptional defensive anticipation and relentless hustle drove a massive positive rating, completely overshadowing a frigid night from beyond the arc. He lived in the passing lanes and constantly disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, turning defensive stops into high-percentage transition looks. His ability to impact winning without his three-point shot falling is a testament to his two-way motor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.4
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 31.8m -16.0
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 31.4m
22
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.4

Bully-ball drives and efficient finishing in the mid-range fueled a highly productive offensive shift. He consistently punished switches, forcing the defense to collapse and creating a gravitational pull that opened up the floor. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.1
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 31.4m -15.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 29.1m
15
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+21.7

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, driven by suffocating perimeter defense and flawless offensive orchestration. He completely dictated the tempo, hounding opposing guards into mistakes while perfectly reading the floor to dissect the defense. His relentless ball pressure and elite decision-making in transition resulted in a staggering net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +6.9
Defense +14.6
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 29.1m -14.7
Impact +21.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 3
S Anthony Black 27.6m
18
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.0

Slashing to the rim with purpose and generating deflections at the point of attack resulted in a dominant two-way performance. He consistently broke down the first line of defense, creating chaos in the paint that led to easy dump-offs. His length on the perimeter suffocated ball-handlers and sparked several fast-break opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 27.6m -13.9
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

Elite rim deterrence and textbook screen-setting were the primary drivers of his positive impact, even with a significantly reduced scoring load. He anchored the paint masterfully, forcing opponents into tough, contested floaters. His willingness to do the dirty work by sealing defenders and altering shots was far more valuable than raw offensive output.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.7
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 21.8m -10.9
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Strong on-ball defensive efforts were completely undone by a total inability to generate offense. He failed to connect on any of his attempts, allowing his defender to aggressively cheat off him and blow up actions on the strong side. The offensive spacing issues he created negated the value of his high-energy defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 22.5m -11.4
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A sharp drop in offensive aggression and poor finishing at the rim dragged his impact into the negative. While he maintained solid defensive positioning and chipped in with timely rotations, his inability to capitalize on offensive advantages stalled the unit's momentum. He simply couldn't find the soft spots in the zone that usually fuel his scoring.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 17.5m -8.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Noah Penda 14.2m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Complete offensive invisibility and defensive misreads resulted in a highly damaging stint on the floor. He failed to register a single shot attempt, allowing the defense to play five-on-four, while simultaneously bleeding value through poor closeouts. His lack of aggression made him a liability on both ends of the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.2
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 14.2m -7.2
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jett Howard 12.3m
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Timely cutting and a willingness to attack closeouts kept his impact slightly in the green. Even though his outside shot wasn't falling at a high clip, his movement off the ball forced defensive rotations and opened up driving lanes. He survived defensively just enough to ensure his offensive contributions held their value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 12.3m -6.3
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.0

An unexpected explosion of interior scoring and relentless energy plays completely shifted the game's momentum during his minutes. He feasted on backup bigs in the pick-and-roll, finishing through contact and generating crucial extra possessions. His infectious motor and efficiency around the basket made him an undeniable spark plug.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 40.6%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +6.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 12.1m -6.1
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a negative rating primarily due to a lack of offensive involvement. He was effectively a ghost on the offensive end, taking no shots and failing to bend the defense. Even his typically elite defensive presence was muted, as opponents simply attacked away from his side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +72.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 7.6m -3.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 6.0m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Minimal court time and a lack of overall involvement resulted in a nearly neutral, slightly negative impact. He knocked down his only look but failed to generate any secondary hustle events or defensive stops to swing the needle. It was a pure placeholder shift that neither helped nor hurt the team significantly.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 6.0m -3.1
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Perfect execution in the pick-and-roll and immediate rim pressure maximized his value in a very short window. He set bruising screens and dove hard to the basket, converting every opportunity he touched. His brief burst of hyper-efficient interior play provided a massive jolt to the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 6.0m -3.1
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nolan Traore 38.0m
21
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.0

A massive scoring surge wasn't enough to keep his overall impact in the green due to underlying defensive bleed. Even though he found a phenomenal rhythm attacking off the dribble, his off-ball passivity and failure to generate secondary hustle events allowed opponents to capitalize in transition. The raw shot-making masked how often he was targeted in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 38.0m -19.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.8

A disastrous shooting night from the perimeter completely tanked his overall impact. While he managed to salvage a bit of value through off-ball hustle and defensive positioning, the sheer volume of empty possessions on offense was too much to overcome. His inability to punish closeouts forced the offense to stall repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.4%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 32.3m -16.3
Impact -15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 31.9m
26
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Blistering perimeter shot-making was the sole engine behind his positive impact rating. He capitalized on every catch-and-shoot opportunity, stretching the defense to its breaking point and masking his otherwise quiet defensive metrics. When a player is this lethal from deep, the lack of secondary hustle stats becomes an afterthought.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 31.9m -16.1
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 28.8m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite finishing around the rim drove a highly efficient offensive showing that anchored his positive rating. He consistently beat his man to the spot, generating high-quality looks while providing steady rim protection on the other end. His vertical spacing was a constant threat that warped the opponent's defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 28.8m -14.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 21.9m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Despite bringing excellent energy on the glass and holding his own defensively, a total offensive zero completely cratered his net score. Missing every single look from the floor allowed the defense to sag off and clog the paint. That lack of shooting gravity erased the positive momentum generated by his high-motor hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -7.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 21.9m -11.0
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Danny Wolf 21.9m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A balanced, two-way effort resulted in a perfectly neutral net rating despite a notable scoring bump. He showed great touch around the basket and contested well at the rim, but a few forced shots in traffic limited his ceiling. His ability to anchor the second unit's defense was the glue that kept the lineup afloat.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 21.9m -11.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Drake Powell 19.0m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Poor shot selection from the perimeter and defensive miscommunications resulted in a negative overall showing. He repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, short-circuiting offensive momentum. Opponents also found too much success attacking his closeouts, compounding the damage of his bricked threes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 19.0m -9.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Smothering point-of-attack defense kept him viable, but a complete offensive disappearance dragged his net score into the red. He passed up open looks and failed to pressure the rim, allowing his defender to act as a free safety. The stark contrast between his elite defensive metrics and non-existent offensive footprint defined his night.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 15.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +8.8
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 17.0m -8.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
Ben Saraf 16.1m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.3

Inability to find any sort of offensive rhythm resulted in a steep negative impact during his minutes. He struggled to turn the corner against drop coverage, leading to stagnant possessions and low-quality attempts. Without disruptive defensive plays to offset the offensive struggles, his floor time was highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 16.1m -8.1
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Gritty interior work and timely offensive rebounding kept his impact hovering just above neutral. He carved out space in the paint effectively, creating second-chance opportunities that bailed out stalled possessions. It was a workmanlike stint defined by physicality rather than flash.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 13.2m -6.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1