GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Anthony Black 34.1m
26
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.1

A masterful two-way performance saw him dominate both ends of the floor, generating a massive net positive rating. His highly efficient shot creation paired perfectly with suffocating point-of-attack defense, making him the most impactful player on the court.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.2
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 34.1m -17.1
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Paolo Banchero 32.7m
11
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Clanking a high volume of contested looks dragged down his offensive value, marking a sharp decline from his usual production. Even with commendable defensive effort and solid rebounding, the sheer weight of his missed shots resulted in a heavily negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 32.7m -16.4
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 30.9m
25
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Surgical precision inside the arc powered an elite offensive box score, making him the focal point of the attack. His defensive metrics sagged slightly against quicker matchups, but his relentless scoring efficiency easily carried his overall impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.7
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 30.9m -15.5
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 26.8m
7
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+14.2

Defensive absolute dominance defined this outing, as he completely dismantled opposing offensive sets to generate a sky-high defensive rating. He sacrificed his own scoring volume to operate as an elite facilitator and hustle merchant, driving a stellar overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +13.9
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 26.8m -13.4
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Elite rim protection and active help defense were completely offset by a disastrous shooting night. Breaking a streak of highly efficient performances, his inability to finish around the basket ultimately sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 24.2m -12.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Struggling to contain penetration on the perimeter led to a negative defensive rating that dragged down his overall score. Despite showcasing solid hustle, his inefficient shot selection prevented him from making up the difference offensively.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 17.1m -8.5
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Franz Wagner 16.6m
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.2

Capitalizing on defensive mismatches allowed him to score with high efficiency during his condensed minutes. His sharp offensive execution heavily outweighed a relatively quiet defensive stint, securing a strong positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 16.6m -8.3
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.3

An unexpected and explosive scoring surge completely shattered his recent averages, fueling an elite offensive box score. He paired this sudden offensive dominance with stout interior defense, resulting in a wildly impactful bench performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +62.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.8
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 16.1m -8.1
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 15.8m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Stepping up with surprising offensive competence, he provided a much-needed spark that far exceeded his typical production. Active hands and solid rebounding fundamentals bolstered his defensive rating, cementing a very productive rotational shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 15.8m -7.9
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Strong positional awareness yielded excellent defensive metrics, but his offensive touch completely deserted him. The inability to convert open perimeter looks negated his defensive contributions, leaving him with a slightly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +51.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 13.4m -6.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Maximizing a brief cameo, he utilized his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate immediate defensive value. He managed to scrape together a positive impact entirely through off-ball movement and drawing contact, without attempting a single field goal.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 4.3m -2.2
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Forcing three unsuccessful shots in just four minutes completely tanked his offensive rating. His inability to connect from deep or provide any secondary hustle stats resulted in a sharply negative impact during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 4.2m -2.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A fleeting appearance offered little time to establish any offensive rhythm, resulting in a quiet statistical line. Minor defensive miscommunications during his brief stint were enough to push his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 3.6m -1.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
28
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.9

Relentless attacking inside the arc fueled a massive offensive box score rating, serving as the primary engine for his team. While his perimeter stroke failed him, high-energy hustle plays ensured his heavy-usage performance resulted in a solid net positive.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 36.1m -18.1
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ryan Rollins 32.5m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.1

Forcing up contested looks derailed his offensive rhythm, resulting in a steep drop-off from his usual scoring punch. The sheer volume of missed shots severely punished his net impact, completely overshadowing his respectable effort on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 32.5m -16.2
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S AJ Green 32.2m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Sizzling perimeter efficiency drove a strong offensive box score, as he generated all his offense from beyond the arc. However, a lackluster hustle rating and poor defensive metrics couldn't prevent his overall net impact from slipping into the negative during his extended run.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 32.2m -16.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 27.3m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Anchoring the interior yielded a robust defensive rating that kept his overall impact in the green. He capitalized on his touches with efficient finishing, snapping a recent cold streak to provide steady two-way value.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 27.3m -13.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 17.6m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

A stark departure from his recent scoring rhythm left a massive void in the offense, plummeting his overall impact. His passive shot selection and inability to find the basket dragged down his box score metrics, making him a severe net negative despite adequate defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -7.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total -4.2
Avg player in 17.6m -8.6
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Jericho Sims 27.7m
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Operating primarily as a defensive deterrent kept his rim-protection metrics high, though his overall impact still slipped below neutral. A lack of offensive assertiveness limited his ability to influence the game beyond basic screening and rebounding duties.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 27.7m -13.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 16.6m
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Flawless perimeter execution and decisive scoring bursts maximized his value during a short stint on the floor. He surrendered some ground defensively, but his hyper-efficient shot-making easily kept his net impact in positive territory.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 16.6m -8.3
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gary Harris 14.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his overall rating, as he failed to register a single impact play on that end of the floor. While he maintained basic defensive principles, his inability to stretch the floor or create offense rendered his minutes a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 14.1m -7.1
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
Cam Thomas 13.4m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Errant shot selection and an inability to find his rhythm severely hampered his effectiveness off the bench. Without his usual scoring gravity to bend the defense, his overall net impact quickly plummeted into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 13.4m -6.7
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 9.6m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Perfect shooting efficiency provided a quick offensive spark, yet his overall impact suffered due to perimeter lapses. He struggled to stay in front of his assignments during his brief rotation, giving back the value he created with his jumper.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 9.6m -4.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Brief rotational minutes were defined by active defensive rotations that kept his head above water. His offensive touch was completely absent compared to recent outings, but his length on the perimeter disrupted enough actions to secure a marginal positive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 5.1m -2.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A pure cardio stint saw him fail to log any meaningful offensive statistics, completely neutralizing his typical scoring presence. He offered slight resistance defensively, but the lack of aggression on the other end resulted in a negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 4.2m -2.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Garbage-time deployment yielded a minimal statistical footprint, with his energy failing to translate into tangible production. A couple of missed defensive assignments slightly tipped his brief appearance into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 3.6m -1.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0