GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 36.4m
14
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.1

A brutal interior shooting performance tanked his overall value despite decent hustle metrics. He settled for forced looks in traffic rather than kicking out to open shooters, killing offensive momentum. Even with active hands on defense, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions created a heavy negative drag.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 36.4m -19.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 33.3m
25
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

Unstoppable bully-ball in the paint drove a massive statistical advantage and elite hustle metrics. He completely overwhelmed his primary defenders with sheer force, generating high-percentage looks at will. However, a lack of defensive engagement allowed opponents to trade baskets, capping his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 33.3m -18.3
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Herbert Jones 32.8m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.2

Offensive invisibility severely punished his overall impact score despite his trademark defensive disruption. He passed up multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities, bogging down the half-court spacing. His elite perimeter containment couldn't compensate for playing essentially 4-on-5 on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 32.8m -17.9
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Derik Queen 31.1m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Incredible effort on 50/50 balls was completely undone by defensive porousness. Opposing bigs easily established deep post position against him, neutralizing his offensive efficiency. He simply gave back too many easy points at the rim to survive his minutes in the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 31.1m -17.1
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Trey Murphy III 27.0m
19
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.0

Active off-ball movement and transition hustle kept his impact afloat despite a cold night from beyond the arc. He smartly attacked closeouts when his jumper wasn't falling, finding alternative ways to generate offense. Minimal defensive resistance prevented this from being a truly dominant two-way outing.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.0m -15.0
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.2

Severe shot-selection issues derailed what was otherwise a highly disruptive defensive performance. He consistently forced contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock, bailing out the opposing defense. His inability to find an offensive rhythm completely overshadowed his excellent point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 30.9m -17.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-efficiency foul drawing and smart defensive rotations anchored a solid rotation shift. He didn't need a high volume of field goal attempts to generate offense, consistently putting pressure on the rim to get to the free throw line. Staying disciplined on closeouts ensured he was a net positive on both ends.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 21.2m -11.7
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevon Looney 13.9m
6
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Masterful positional rebounding and mistake-free execution drove a highly efficient stint. He anchored the interior defense by constantly communicating switches and walling off the paint. Doing all the dirty work without demanding offensive touches perfectly optimized the lineups he played with.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 13.9m -7.7
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

A sharp drop in offensive volume limited his ability to influence the game during his brief stint. He set solid screens and competed on the glass, but failed to demand the ball in the pick-and-roll. Ultimately, he was too passive to move the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 13.4m -7.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 37.0m
27
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.9

A massive defensive anchor performance completely salvaged a highly inefficient shooting night. Settling for too many perimeter looks dragged down his offensive impact, but his rim deterrence erased multiple opponent possessions. His sheer volume of defensive stops and hustle plays ultimately outweighed the wasted offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 13/17 (76.5%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +11.6
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 37.0m -20.4
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
S Davion Mitchell 27.8m
9
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.5

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish in traffic cratered his overall effectiveness. Without his usual point-of-attack defensive disruption to fall back on, the wasted offensive possessions became glaring. He repeatedly forced contested looks late in the shot clock rather than keeping the ball moving.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 27.8m -15.3
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kel'el Ware 27.6m
16
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.5

Aggressive interior finishing and stretching the floor effectively drove an elite statistical footprint. He consistently beat his man down the floor to establish deep post position, leading to high-quality looks. Pairing that interior dominance with solid rim protection created massive two-way value.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 27.6m -15.3
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Heavy reliance on the three-ball yielded mixed offensive results, but his defensive activity kept his overall impact in the green. He functioned primarily as a floor spacer, punishing late closeouts to generate a massive scoring spike compared to his recent slump. Staying engaged on the less glamorous end prevented his missed jumpers from sinking his value.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 26.9m -14.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myron Gardner 22.9m
8
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Strong defensive positioning and relentless board work fueled a solid positive impact. Stepping out to hit timely perimeter shots kept the defense honest, which opened up driving lanes for teammates. His ability to scale up his offensive aggression without sacrificing defensive integrity defined his floor time.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 22.9m -12.7
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
23
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.9

Exceptional defensive instincts and relentless attacking inside the arc defined this highly impactful showing. Coming up empty from beyond the arc didn't matter because his footwork in the mid-post consistently generated high-percentage looks. He disrupted passing lanes all night, turning defense into immediate transition offense.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +12.6
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 34.9m -19.2
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Despite a noticeable uptick in scoring aggression, his negative impact stemmed from defensive lapses and perimeter inefficiency. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, offering minimal resistance at the point of attack. The offensive burst was largely negated by giving up straight-line drives on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 25.3m -13.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 19.9m
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

High-energy hustle plays and careful shot selection kept him marginally in the positive during his rotation minutes. He played strictly within himself, taking only high-value looks while focusing his energy on loose balls and connective passing. This low-mistake, high-effort approach perfectly suited his role as a stabilizing bench piece.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 19.9m -11.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A very quiet stint where limited offensive involvement prevented him from making a tangible positive mark. While his defensive positioning was solid, he floated on the perimeter too often instead of forcing the issue inside. He simply didn't generate enough gravity or disruption to tilt the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 17.7m -9.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1