GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Zion Williamson 33.2m
26
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.8

Bullied his way to the rim with unmatched physicality, generating immense rim pressure that collapsed the defense on every drive. His active hands in the passing lanes and surprisingly disciplined closeouts completely overwhelmed his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.4
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 33.2m -17.8
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 30.9m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

Put on an absolute masterclass in perimeter containment, completely erasing the opposing primary creator despite an abysmal shooting night of his own. His phenomenal weak-side rotations and relentless ball pressure generated massive defensive value that easily outweighed the offensive bricks.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +11.4
Defense +10.6
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 30.9m -16.5
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 0
S Saddiq Bey 30.8m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Cold perimeter shooting and a tendency to force action into crowded paint areas resulted in empty possessions. Even with decent positional size, his inability to stretch the defense allowed opponents to pack the paint against drivers.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 30.8m -16.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dejounte Murray 24.8m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Bogged down the offense with overdribbling and late-clock isolation attempts that routinely bailed out the defense. While he fought over screens adequately, the stagnant offensive flow during his shifts proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 24.8m -13.4
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S DeAndre Jordan 22.4m
6
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Provided reliable vertical spacing and set bone-crushing screens that freed up ball handlers at the top of the key. Kept things simple by protecting the paint and securing contested defensive boards to limit second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 22.4m -12.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Jordan Poole 22.8m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Deep, ill-advised pull-ups early in the shot clock acted as live-ball turnovers, sparking easy transition run-outs for the opposition. The flashy shot creation couldn't hide the defensive lapses and erratic shot selection that ultimately sank his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 22.8m -12.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.1

Rushed his reads in the pick-and-roll, leading to errant passes and low-quality floaters in traffic. He showed flashes of peskiness at the point of attack, but the erratic decision-making consistently stalled offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 21.1m -11.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Played perfectly within the flow of the offense, taking only high-value shots and keeping the ball moving. His disciplined closeouts and ability to stay in front of straight-line drives provided a massive boost to the second unit's defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 18.4m -9.9
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.5

Capitalized on every rotation with decisive cuts and excellent finishing around the basket. His rim-deterrence was equally impressive, altering multiple shots in the paint to anchor a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 18.2m -9.8
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
Derik Queen 17.5m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Forced too many heavily contested shots in the post instead of kicking out to open shooters. The lack of offensive efficiency negated his decent positional defense and interior physicality.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.8%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 17.5m -9.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Gui Santos 39.3m
15
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.9

Relentless energy on the glass and disruptive defensive positioning generated immense hustle value. However, clunky execution from beyond the arc and likely live-ball mistakes wiped out those marginal gains, leaving him slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +6.4
Defense +8.0
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 39.3m -21.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 31
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 48.4%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 6
S Moses Moody 34.0m
24
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

High-volume perimeter execution fueled a strong offensive rating, though his defensive rotations left points on the board. His ability to consistently stretch the floor masked some minor lapses in off-ball coverage.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 34.0m -18.2
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 31.6m
11
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.7

Orchestrated the half-court offense beautifully while anchoring the backline with his trademark defensive communication. His timely reads and physical screens created wide-open looks for teammates, driving a highly positive two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 31.6m -17.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
28
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

A massive spike in usage led to forced jumpers and inefficient isolation possessions that dragged down his overall efficiency. While the sheer scoring volume kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches, the poor shot diet heavily capped his net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 28.2m -15.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pat Spencer 23.1m
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.0

Struggled to find a rhythm offensively, forcing contested looks early in the shot clock that sparked opponent transition opportunities. Despite showing some resistance at the point of attack, his inability to bend the defense ultimately cratered his floor time.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 23.1m -12.4
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

Overcame a brutal shooting night by relentlessly crashing the glass and blowing up passing lanes. His elite positional rebounding and defensive anticipation salvaged a performance that was otherwise marred by clanking open spot-up looks.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.5
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 31.9m -17.2
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Quinten Post 22.9m
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Settling for perimeter pick-and-pops rather than rolling hard to the rim neutralized his gravity in the half-court. He provided sturdy interior rim protection, but the empty trips from deep allowed the defense to ignore him completely.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 22.9m -12.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Will Richard 17.5m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, failing to apply any pressure on the rim or space the floor. He managed to stay attached to his assignment defensively, but playing 4-on-5 on the other end made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.1%
Net Rtg -47.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 17.5m -9.5
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing around the basket and misfires from the corners severely hampered the spacing. Without his usual disruptive defensive playmaking to compensate, his minutes quickly bled value.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -41.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 11.5m -6.2
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1