GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Royce O'Neale 45.7m
6
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.0

Heavy minutes were marred by a disastrous perimeter shooting performance that severely handicapped the offense. Missing a high volume of threes allowed defenders to pack the paint and completely ignore him on the weak side. Exceptional hustle and defensive rebounding metrics couldn't offset the damage caused by his inability to stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +7.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 45.7m -21.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.0

A massive leap in scoring volume was undercut by poor efficiency, keeping his net rating slightly negative. He dominated the ball in the halfcourt but settled for far too many contested pull-up threes. Despite generating solid offensive production, the sheer number of missed shots prevented the unit from finding a true rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.9m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 44.9m -20.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Green 36.8m
16
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.1

A catastrophic shooting night absolutely cratered his overall impact score. He hijacked possessions with forced isolations, clanking a massive volume of field goals and constantly bailing out the defense with early-clock jumpers. The sheer number of empty trips completely overshadowed his surprisingly solid defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/26 (23.1%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 27.9%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.7
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 36.8m -17.1
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 28.4m
9
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing around the rim dragged his impact into negative territory. He missed several high-percentage bunnies in the pick-and-roll, failing to punish smaller defenders on switches. While his rim protection remained adequate, the squandered interior opportunities stalled crucial offensive runs.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 28.4m -13.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 7.2m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

A brief but erratic shooting stint limited his offensive ceiling, though he managed to stay slightly positive. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, disrupting the flow of the halfcourt offense. However, his physical point-of-attack defense against primary ball-handlers provided just enough value to edge his rating into the green.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 7.2m -3.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless perimeter aggression drove a positive impact despite a streaky shooting percentage. He utilized constant off-ball movement to warp the defense, pulling rim protectors away from the paint. Even with a high volume of missed field goals, his sheer scoring gravity and floor spacing opened up vital driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 33.2m -15.3
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 29.6m
11
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Elite efficiency in the pick-and-roll fueled a highly impressive overall rating. He punished defensive miscommunications with hard rolls to the rim, finishing through contact and generating second-chance opportunities. His disciplined drop coverage and active hands in the passing lanes completed a superb two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 29.6m -13.7
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.1

Lethal shot-making off the bench catalyzed a massive positive swing in the game's momentum. He capitalized on every defensive lapse, knocking down rhythm threes and attacking closeouts with decisive drives. This hyper-efficient scoring burst single-handedly anchored the second unit's offensive production.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 24.9m -11.5
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 22.4m
3
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Offensive invisibility plagued his minutes, as he failed to apply any pressure on the rim. He passed up open looks and allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team primary scorers. Strong weak-side defensive rotations kept his defensive metrics afloat, but his lack of scoring gravity was a major detriment.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.4m -10.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Another scoreless outing severely damaged his unit's net rating. He bricked multiple wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the opposition to completely ignore him in the halfcourt. The inability to knock down basic rotational passes made him an offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 14.6m -6.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Garbage time minutes yielded a slightly negative score due to a lack of overall involvement. He merely initiated the offense without looking to attack, letting the clock bleed out. The sample size was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions about his play.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 46.6m
26
pts
14
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.4

High-volume inefficiency dragged his net rating into the red, as a barrage of missed field goals derailed the unit's rhythm. He absorbed massive usage in isolation sets but settled for far too many contested midrange jumpers. Strong work on the defensive glass partially salvaged his overall grade, though the poor shot selection left significant points on the board.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 46.6m -21.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 6
S Anthony Black 44.9m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.7

Perimeter shooting woes completely neutralized his offensive value, as he blanked on all his attempts from beyond the arc. Opponents sagged off him aggressively, clogging the paint and stalling halfcourt execution. While his point-of-attack defense remained disruptive, the inability to space the floor proved disastrous for the unit's net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 44.9m -20.9
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 39.6m
34
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.8

Elite shot-making from the perimeter fueled a massive positive impact score. He punished drop coverage by hunting transition threes and maintaining pristine spacing throughout the contest. This scoring explosion forced defensive adjustments that opened up driving lanes for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +27.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 39.6m -18.4
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.3

A severe drop-off in scoring efficiency tanked his overall impact despite solid defensive metrics. Clanking multiple perimeter looks killed offensive momentum and prevented the floor spacing his team relies on. His defensive rotations remained crisp, but the empty possessions on the other end were simply too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 37.5m -17.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
7
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Passive offensive involvement resulted in a negative overall impact, snapping a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He deferred too often in the halfcourt, failing to pressure the rim while struggling to anchor the interior defense against downhill drivers. This lack of aggression allowed the opposition to ignore him and overload the strong side.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 34.3m -15.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jevon Carter 33.0m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

A massive spike in offensive volume wasn't enough to push his impact into the green due to erratic perimeter shooting. He forced several contested looks late in the shot clock, bricking a barrage of threes that bailed out the defense. His relentless ball pressure generated quality defensive metrics, but the trigger-happy shot selection limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 33.0m -15.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
Jett Howard 18.8m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

A complete offensive disappearing act torpedoed his rating during a rough rotation stint. He looked hesitant on catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling ball movement and failing to register on the scoreboard. Though he showed flashes of decent weak-side help defense, the total lack of scoring gravity made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 18.8m -8.8
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Highly efficient interior finishing during a brief rotation stint drove a strong positive score. He capitalized on pick-and-roll mismatches, setting bruising screens that created immediate downhill advantages. This short burst of physical offensive execution provided a crucial spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 12.2m -5.6
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Perfect execution on limited touches allowed him to post a solid positive rating in under ten minutes of action. He anchored the paint effectively during the non-starter minutes, altering shots at the rim to deter baseline drives. His ability to convert dump-off passes without forcing the issue stabilized the backup center spot.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -48.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 8.7m -4.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Limited minutes yielded a modest but positive impact driven primarily by disciplined positioning. He executed his assignments flawlessly in a short defensive stint, denying post entries and contesting without fouling. The offensive role was minimal, but he kept the ball moving and avoided negative plays.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 8.3m -3.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Noah Penda 5.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

High-energy hustle plays compensated for a completely barren offensive showing. He kept possessions alive by crashing the glass and diving for loose balls during a chaotic stretch of play. This relentless motor generated enough extra possessions to keep his overall impact in the black despite offering zero scoring threat.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -62.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 5.9m -2.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0