GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Anthony Black 38.0m
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless point-of-attack defense and high-motor hustle plays drove a highly positive two-way impact. Even with a streaky shooting performance from deep, his ability to generate deflections and push the pace in transition kept the pressure on the opponent. His aggressive downhill attacking defined his successful night.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +6.6
Defense +9.2
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 38.0m -20.5
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 38.0m
23
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.8

Heavy isolation usage and inefficient perimeter finishing dragged his net impact into the red. He repeatedly settled for contested mid-range fadeaways rather than leveraging his size to draw fouls at the rim. While his defensive metrics remained robust, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions ultimately hurt the team.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.6%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +9.9
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 38.0m -20.4
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Desmond Bane 35.6m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Despite respectable scoring volume, his overall net rating slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses and transition errors. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. The raw offensive numbers masked how much value he surrendered on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 35.6m -19.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 34.4m
12
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite perimeter ball pressure and exceptional hustle metrics completely overshadowed his inefficient shooting night. He blew up multiple pick-and-roll sets by fighting through screens and disrupting passing lanes. This defensive menace identity ensured a strong positive impact even when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense +13.0
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 34.4m -18.5
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A drastic drop in offensive involvement neutralized his otherwise stellar defensive positioning. By attempting very few shots, he failed to punish switches or keep the opposing frontcourt honest. His reluctance to demand the ball in the post defined a game where his impact was muted despite strong rim protection.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.6
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 28.4m -15.2
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

A failure to impact the game defensively or on the glass resulted in a negative overall score, despite decent shooting splits. He struggled to navigate screens, frequently leaving shooters open on the perimeter. His drop in offensive aggression compounded these defensive shortcomings, rendering his minutes largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 20.0m -10.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.3

A massive surge in perimeter efficiency fundamentally flipped his usual offensive profile, driving a stellar net impact. He capitalized on trailing threes in transition, punishing the defense for failing to match up. This unexpected floor-spacing dynamic completely opened up the paint for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 17.0m -9.0
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Maximized his limited minutes by executing perfectly on his few offensive touches and maintaining high energy. He capitalized on broken plays, finding open space for clean looks without forcing the issue. This disciplined, mistake-free approach yielded a highly efficient positive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 13.6m -7.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 9.9m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Flawless execution around the basket generated a surprising positive impact during his brief rotation. He exploited backdoor cuts when the defense overplayed the perimeter, providing a sudden spark of reliable offense. Making the most of his limited touches defined this highly efficient stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 9.9m -5.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Rushing his offensive looks led to empty possessions and a negative rating in an extremely brief appearance. He failed to establish any rhythm, clanking quick perimeter shots before the offense could set up. His usual defensive disruption was entirely absent in this short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Despite a sharp drop in scoring volume, he managed a positive net impact through disciplined defensive rotations and active off-ball movement. He didn't force his shot when heavily guarded, opting instead to keep the offensive flow moving. His willingness to execute the scheme rather than hunt numbers defined his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 2.4m -1.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 30.9m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.8

A sharp regression from his recent scoring tear tanked his net impact, driven by forced shots early in the shot clock. While he remained engaged defensively, the offensive inefficiency created too many empty possessions. His struggles to create separation against physical perimeter coverage defined a highly negative outing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 30.9m -16.7
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Lauri Markkanen 26.9m
27
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite shot-making fueled a massive offensive box score impact, consistently punishing mismatches on the perimeter. However, his relatively muted defensive metrics suggest he gave some of that value back in transition or on switches. His ability to hit contested jumpers off the catch defined Utah's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 26.9m -14.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Anchoring the interior yielded a massive defensive rating, completely altering the opponent's rim-attack strategy. He paired this rim deterrence with highly efficient scoring from the elbows and block. This two-way dominance resulted in a highly positive overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.6
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 25.1m -13.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jusuf Nurkić 23.7m
3
pts
14
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.8

Despite providing excellent positional defense and altering shots in the paint, his complete lack of offensive aggression severely limited his overall value. Passing up open looks around the basket allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes. His impact cratered because he became a non-threat in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.5
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 23.7m -12.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Keyonte George 13.4m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Perimeter inefficiency and an inability to generate rim pressure resulted in a noticeably negative overall rating. He settled for heavily contested perimeter looks rather than breaking down the defense off the bounce. This lack of offensive penetration stalled Utah's momentum during his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 13.4m -7.2
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-volume playmaking and efficient interior scoring generated a massive box score rating, but his actual net impact barely broke even. This discrepancy points to costly live-ball errors or transition defensive lapses that gave points right back to the opponent. His ability to consistently collapse the defense off the dribble was offset by erratic decision-making in traffic.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 31.6m -17.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Disastrous shot selection and an inability to finish through contact cratered his overall value. Falling drastically short of his recent scoring averages, he forced contested mid-range jumpers that essentially acted as live-ball turnovers. His defensive effort couldn't salvage the damage done by his offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 23.4m -12.6
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 17.9m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operating strictly as a connective piece, his low-usage approach yielded a slightly positive but muted overall impact. He contributed through timely rotations and solid positional rebounding rather than scoring volume. A reluctance to attack closeouts kept his offensive ceiling low, though he avoided costly mistakes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 17.9m -9.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to attempt a single shot after previously serving as a primary scoring option. This extreme passivity allowed defenders to completely ignore him, ruining the team's spacing. Even with marginal hustle contributions, his offensive disappearance drove a heavily negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 13.6m -7.3
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 12.3m
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.0

Perfect execution from beyond the arc fueled a massive spike in offensive value during a highly efficient rotational stint. He exploited defensive miscommunications on pick-and-pops, instantly punishing late closeouts. This flawless shot selection maximized his net impact despite playing limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 136.6%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 12.3m -6.6
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

A sharp reduction in offensive aggression limited his overall influence, snapping a streak of high-volume efficiency. While he didn't hurt the team with poor shots, his passivity allowed the interior defense to rest. His impact hovered near neutral simply because he failed to assert his usual physical dominance in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 12.0m -6.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

A complete lack of offensive involvement and poor defensive positioning led to a negative rating in limited action. He struggled to stay in front of his assignment, forcing the defense into disadvantageous rotations. Failing to leave any positive imprint on the game defined this brief, ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 9.2m -4.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0