GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 39.3m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Inefficient isolation attempts against set defenses severely dragged down his overall value. He frequently settled for contested long twos early in the shot clock rather than pressuring the rim. Despite solid defensive metrics, his offensive stagnation killed the team's momentum during key stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 39.3m -20.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Desmond Bane 38.9m
31
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.3

Blistering perimeter efficiency absolutely torched the opponent's drop coverage. He consistently relocated along the arc, finding soft spots in transition to bury back-breaking triples. His off-ball movement dictated the entire geometry of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 8/11 (72.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 38.9m -20.5
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Suggs 34.9m
16
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
+13.3

Absolute menace at the point of attack, generating massive value through relentless ball pressure and passing lane disruption. His elite defensive rating reflects a masterclass in blowing up pick-and-rolls before they could develop. He offset poor shooting by spoon-feeding teammates with pinpoint transition dimes.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +5.9
Defense +14.0
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 34.9m -18.5
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 4
BLK 3
TO 1
6
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Bricking wide-open pick-and-pop attempts completely neutralized his offensive utility. The opponent sagged off him aggressively, daring him to shoot and clogging the paint for driving guards. His solid interior defense couldn't compensate for being an offensive liability that ruined the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 30.6m -16.1
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Black 24.7m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Defensive miscommunications and late closeouts allowed back-breaking perimeter looks for the opposition. While his shooting splits look relatively clean, he struggled to navigate off-ball screens, constantly trailing his assignment. The negative impact stems entirely from being targeted and exploited on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 24.7m -13.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Passive offensive play and an inability to secure contested rebounds heavily damaged his net rating. He frequently passed up open looks, stalling the offensive flow and forcing teammates into late-clock grenades. Opponents consistently out-muscled him in the paint during a disastrous second-quarter stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 23.2m -12.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Franz Wagner 20.6m
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Poor finishing around the basket and clanked perimeter looks erased his otherwise stellar defensive contributions. He generated good looks out of the pick-and-roll but simply could not get the ball to fall. His length disrupted passing lanes, yet the offensive zeroes kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 20.6m -11.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.1

Masterful execution in the pick-and-roll carved up the opponent's interior defense. He set bone-crushing screens and rolled with purpose, finishing through contact at the rim. His infectious energy and hyper-efficient paint touches catalyzed a massive run for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 17.4m -9.2
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

A brief cameo marred by defensive breakdowns against quicker guards. He hit his only look, but gave the points right back by getting blown by on the perimeter. The slight negative score reflects his inability to stay in front of his man during isolation sets.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 6.8m -3.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 3.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Struggled to adapt to the speed of the game during a very brief rotation appearance. He was caught out of position on two defensive sequences, leading to easy layups. A non-factor offensively who simply ate up clock without providing value.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.6m -1.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
18
pts
10
reb
11
ast
Impact
-2.7

High-usage playmaking yielded strong box score metrics, but erratic decision-making in traffic dragged down his true impact. A string of live-ball turnovers in the third quarter directly fed the opponent's fast break. The raw production ultimately masked how much momentum he gave away through forced passes.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 38.6m -20.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jericho Sims 35.9m
17
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

Flawless finishing around the rim and elite offensive rebounding fueled a massive positive swing. He consistently beat his man to the dunker spot, converting dump-offs into high-percentage looks. The sheer volume of second-chance opportunities he generated completely overshadowed minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 35.9m -19.1
Impact +7.5
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 30.7m
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Defensive intimidation anchored his positive impact despite a massive drop in scoring volume. He completely deterred drives to the paint, altering countless shots at the rim while securing crucial defensive rebounds. His willingness to accept a low-usage offensive role allowed him to expend maximum energy as a back-line anchor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.8
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 30.7m -16.3
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S AJ Green 30.4m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Perimeter shot-chucking derailed his overall effectiveness, as missed quick-trigger threes stunted the team's half-court rhythm. While he competed hard on the defensive end and chased loose balls, the empty offensive possessions proved too costly. Opponents successfully ran him off the line, forcing low-quality looks under pressure.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 30.4m -16.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyle Kuzma 29.8m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.6

Severe negative impact driven by perimeter inefficiency and forced shots late in the shot clock. Clanking a high volume of threes created long rebounds that allowed the opponent to ignite their transition offense. Despite decent defensive metrics, his offensive black-hole tendencies tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 29.8m -15.8
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Thomas 25.1m
34
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.6

An absolute scoring clinic against isolation coverage drove a sky-high net rating. He relentlessly punished switches, using elite shot creation to bail out stagnant offensive possessions. The sheer efficiency of his jump-shooting essentially broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 45.6%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 25.1m -13.3
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Lethal spot-up shooting from the corners stretched the defense to its breaking point. He capitalized perfectly on drive-and-kick opportunities, punishing late closeouts with a quick release. This floor-spacing gravity opened up vital driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 22.6m -12.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 16.4m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Impact cratered due to forced mid-range jumpers and an inability to stretch the floor against zone coverages. Missing all his perimeter attempts allowed the defense to pack the paint and disrupt the team's spacing. He brought his usual energy, but the offensive execution was entirely out of sync.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 16.4m -8.7
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Completely invisible during a brief stint, failing to make any dent in the flow of the game. His inability to get open off screens rendered him a non-factor offensively. The negative impact largely stems from being a passive bystander while the opponent went on a quick run.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 6.2m -3.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 4.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A completely empty shift where he failed to register a single hustle play or defensive stop. He looked lost in rotation, giving up open driving lanes without offering any rim protection. The negative score reflects a player who was targeted defensively the moment he stepped on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 4.3m -2.3
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1