GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Zion Williamson 32.8m
21
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.1

Utterly dominated the interior matchups, using his gravity to collapse the paint and generate high-quality looks for cutters. His surprisingly elite weak-side rim rotations completely shut off the opponent's baseline cutting game, cementing a massive +12.1 total impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +9.3
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 32.8m -18.4
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 32.1m
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Relentless ball-denial and screen navigation fueled an elite +8.9 hustle rating that set the tone for the perimeter defense. He capitalized on the resulting transition opportunities, turning his defensive havoc directly into efficient fast-break conversions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 32.1m -18.0
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S DeAndre Jordan 31.5m
6
pts
15
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.2

Completely walled off the restricted area, generating a monstrous +14.7 defensive impact through flawless verticality and rim deterrence. His offensive role was minimal, but his ability to end opponent possessions with dominant defensive rebounding anchored the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +14.7
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 31.5m -17.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 26.9m
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Scoring volume completely masked how much he gave back on the other end of the floor. A glaring lack of defensive awareness and failure to close out on corner shooters allowed the opponent to easily match his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.3
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 26.9m -15.1
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derik Queen 20.9m
10
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Struggled to establish deep post position, which led to stagnant offensive possessions and a resulting negative total impact. While his positional rebounding and drop coverage were passable, his inability to command double-teams allowed the defense to stay home on shooters.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 20.9m -11.7
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Highly efficient spot-up shooting was entirely undone by consistent breakdowns in point-of-attack containment. His inability to stay in front of straight-line drives forced the defense into constant rotation, negating his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense -1.4
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 26.7m -14.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.0

Offensive impact cratered due to a severe inability to finish through contact, leading to empty possessions and transition run-outs for the opponent. While he battled admirably on the defensive end, his forced, out-of-rhythm floaters completely derailed the team's offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.7%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 24.9m -14.0
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jordan Poole 24.5m
23
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.1

A lethal combination of off-the-dribble shot creation and deep range completely fractured the opponent's defensive shell. This aggressive scoring mentality drove a massive positive box impact, forcing the defense into traps that ultimately opened up the entire half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +37.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 24.5m -13.6
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Flawless shot selection and execution maximized his offensive footprint, resulting in a stellar +11.3 box impact. He consistently burned the defense for over-helping, stepping into pick-and-pop situations with perfect rhythm to stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 126.1%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 18.2m -10.3
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A heavily contested, rushed perimeter attempt defined a fleeting and ineffective stint on the floor. He failed to establish any defensive presence before being quickly subbed out, resulting in a minor negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 36.2m
27
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.2

Exceptional point-of-attack containment completely salvaged a highly inefficient perimeter shooting night. He repeatedly settled for contested pull-up threes, but his relentless ball pressure on the other end consistently disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +11.4
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 36.2m -20.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 5
S VJ Edgecombe 35.3m
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.9

Total impact cratered to -7.9 due to a barrage of low-quality, contested perimeter jumpers that derailed the offensive flow. While his point-of-attack defense remained sturdy, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions erased any goodwill earned on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 35.3m -19.7
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 33.3m
25
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

Explosive scoring burst fueled a massive positive box impact, driven by aggressive perimeter shot-making that consistently punished defensive drop coverages. His active hands in the passing lanes supplemented the offensive onslaught with a strong +4.9 hustle rating.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +4.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 33.3m -18.6
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 28.9m
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Despite a rare dip in finishing efficiency around the rim, his value was entirely salvaged by relentless energy on the margins. An elite +8.5 hustle rating and superb weak-side rim protection ensured he remained a net positive during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +8.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 28.9m -16.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Andre Drummond 21.2m
5
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Wasted offensive possessions on forced interior looks dragged his overall impact slightly into the red. However, his physical post defense and ability to anchor the paint prevented the opponent from capitalizing on his missed bunnies.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 21.2m -11.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

Perimeter shot selection heavily weighed down his overall rating, as he repeatedly forced looks early in the shot clock against set defenses. A lack of secondary effort plays meant he offered little alternative value when the outside shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 25.8m -14.5
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Adem Bona 21.4m
4
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Passive offensive positioning severely limited his overall footprint, resulting in a slightly negative total impact. He offered adequate drop-coverage defense, but his inability to make himself a viable roll threat allowed the defense to trap the ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 21.4m -11.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Capitalized perfectly on defensive rotations by knocking down high-leverage spot-up opportunities. This sudden surge in offensive efficiency forced the opponent to alter their closeout angles, opening up the floor for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 16.4m -9.1
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Errant perimeter shooting completely neutralized the value of his high-energy defensive rotations. He consistently generated extra possessions through loose-ball recoveries, only to squander them with rushed looks from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 13.1m -7.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Failed to leave any tangible imprint on the game during his brief rotation stint, registering zero defensive or hustle impact. His inability to disrupt passing lanes or challenge shots at the rim left the second unit vulnerable during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 6.1m -3.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

A rushed, out-of-rhythm shot attempt defined a highly ineffective cameo appearance. He provided zero resistance on the perimeter, allowing straight-line drives that quickly sank his overall rating in just over two minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.3m -1.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0