GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 36.0m
22
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Two-way stability anchored his positive overall impact across heavy minutes. He punished late closeouts with decisive straight-line drives while remaining highly disciplined in his weakside defensive rotations. This steady, mistake-free execution provided a reliable baseline for the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +10.5
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 36.0m -22.2
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Herbert Jones 31.6m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.6

A disastrous shooting night from deep severely compromised his team's half-court spacing. Opponents aggressively sagged off him to clog driving lanes, and his uncharacteristic struggles navigating off-ball screens compounded the negative impact. His usual defensive menace wasn't enough to offset the offensive bottleneck he created.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 31.6m -19.4
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 30.3m
32
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.1

Unstoppable interior bullying generated a massive positive impact score. He systematically dismantled single coverage in the low post, forcing the defense into foul trouble while generating high-percentage looks at the rim. The sheer efficiency of his physical approach completely overwhelmed the opponent's frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 13/17 (76.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.0%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +30.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 30.3m -18.6
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bryce McGowens 30.3m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Poor shot selection from the perimeter dragged his overall impact deeply into the negative. Despite showing flashes of energetic on-ball defense, his tendency to force contested jumpers early in the shot clock derailed offensive momentum. The inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint against the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 30.3m -18.6
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 81.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 28.0m
18
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Superb rim-running and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a breakout performance. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, capitalizing on early offense to shatter his recent scoring averages. Defensively, his verticality altered multiple shots at the summit to anchor the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +9.3
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 28.0m -17.2
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 72.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 4
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

Forcing the issue in the mid-range resulted in a slightly negative rating despite solid defensive metrics. He struggled to find his rhythm against drop coverage, settling for long twos instead of attacking the basket. While his point-of-attack defense was disruptive, the inefficient offensive diet hurt the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.4
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 28.9m -17.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Jordan Poole 25.1m
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.4

Errant decision-making and a total lack of offensive rhythm cratered his impact score. He repeatedly derailed sets by overdribbling into traffic, leading to empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent. This performance continued a troubling trend of offensive stagnation when he acts as the primary initiator.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 25.1m -15.3
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Flawless shot execution kept his impact hovering right around neutral. He operated exclusively within his comfort zone, setting bruising screens and diving hard to the rim to maintain his streak of hyper-efficient games. However, a lack of defensive rebounding presence allowed second-chance points that wiped out his offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 24.9m -15.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

A quick, ineffective stint saw him targeted defensively on the perimeter. He was blown by on closeouts twice in rapid succession, forcing the coaching staff to pull him early. Failing to launch from deep meant he couldn't replicate his recent scoring punch to justify staying on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 5.0m -3.0
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 34.5m
27
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+20.1

Elite two-way execution resulted in a massive positive net rating. Catch-and-shoot mastery from the corners stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. He compounded this perimeter explosion with exceptional point-of-attack ball pressure, generating deflections that ignited transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +12.6
Raw total +41.3
Avg player in 34.5m -21.2
Impact +20.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
25
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.0

Driving to the basket with relentless aggression fueled a highly positive impact score. He consistently broke down the primary point-of-attack defender, creating high-value rim attempts and collapsing the defense. Maintaining his recent scoring surge, his downhill pressure dictated the entire offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 32.4m -19.8
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S AJ Green 29.9m
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-18.5

An absolute offensive disappearing act torpedoed his overall rating. Blanking from beyond the arc created severe spacing issues for the second unit, though active perimeter closeouts salvaged a modicum of defensive value. The steep drop-off from his recent double-digit scoring average left a massive void in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 29.9m -18.4
Impact -18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 25.1m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.0

Finished perfectly neutral in net impact due to an exact equilibrium of efficient scoring and quiet stretches. His shot selection was crisp, consistently taking what the defense gave him in the mid-post to maintain his recent offensive rhythm. However, a glaring lack of secondary hustle plays prevented him from tipping the scales into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 25.1m -15.3
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jericho Sims 18.9m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Low usage and a failure to command the paint dragged his overall rating into the red. Despite converting his limited lob opportunities, he was repeatedly sealed off on defensive rebounding sequences. This passive interior presence allowed opponents to dictate the tempo during his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +50.1
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 18.9m -11.6
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Bobby Portis 27.1m
17
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Physicality on the interior drove a solid positive impact during his rotation minutes. He punished smaller defenders on switches and secured critical second-chance opportunities through sheer positioning. This blue-collar approach stabilized the frontcourt while breaking him out of a recent minor shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 27.1m -16.6
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 90.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Hesitancy to attack closeouts severely limited his offensive ceiling and tanked his overall rating. He frequently deferred to teammates instead of leveraging his length to get to the rim against smaller wings. The resulting empty possessions stalled the team's momentum and marked a sharp decline from his recent aggressive play.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 22.4m -13.7
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Pete Nance 21.7m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

A slightly negative impact stemmed from late defensive rotations rather than offensive inefficiency. While he spaced the floor adequately from the trail spot, he was consistently a half-step slow on weakside rim protection. Those interior breakdowns negated the value of his steady pick-and-pop shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 21.7m -13.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Cam Thomas 20.8m
27
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.8

Microwave scoring off the bench completely tilted the game's momentum in his team's favor. He relentlessly attacked drop coverage, finding his spots in the mid-range and finishing through contact to shatter his recent scoring averages. This massive offensive eruption easily outweighed a relatively quiet defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 40.4%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 20.8m -12.7
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Garbage-time minutes provided a small positive bump strictly through defensive energy. He picked up full-court pressure immediately upon checking in, disrupting the opponent's initiation. There simply wasn't enough floor time to establish any offensive rhythm or match his usual production.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

A brief cameo at the end of the game yielded a negligible impact score. He managed to shake loose for one quick perimeter look off a baseline screen but otherwise just ran out the clock. His defensive engagement was virtually non-existent in these low-leverage minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 2.5m -1.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

High-motor play in the dying minutes scraped together a marginally positive rating. He crashed the offensive glass with typical reckless abandon, generating an extra possession in the waning seconds. The short stint was purely about energy rather than half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 2.5m -1.5
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0