GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 38.4m
24
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

A surprisingly negative total impact (-7.2) suggests his offensive possessions were bogged down by unforced errors or poor spacing. While his defensive metrics (+5.6) were solid, the inability to connect from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and disrupt the team's half-court flow. He struggled to leverage his gravity into high-quality looks for others.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 13/16 (81.2%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.6
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 38.4m -19.6
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 9
S Desmond Bane 37.9m
17
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.6

Poor overall shooting efficiency suppressed his impact, as he struggled to find rhythm against physical perimeter defense. He managed to keep his net rating near neutral by facilitating for teammates and maintaining solid defensive positioning (+4.0). However, the missed contested jumpers ultimately stalled out too many half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 37.9m -19.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Highly efficient shot selection and constant off-ball movement drove a strong positive impact. He supplemented his clean offensive execution with excellent hustle (+6.2) and disciplined defensive rotations (+6.0). This steady, mistake-free performance provided a crucial stabilizing presence on the wing.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +6.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 36.9m -18.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Elite interior defense (+9.2) could not salvage a deeply negative impact score caused by an anemic offensive showing. He passed up several open looks and failed to establish any physical dominance in the paint on offense. The resulting lack of frontcourt scoring pressure allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +9.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 32.8m -16.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 26.5m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

A brutal display of shot selection completely tanked his offensive value. While he brought his usual baseline of hustle (+3.4) and defensive pressure, the sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities. His refusal to attack the paint made him entirely one-dimensional.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 26.5m -13.6
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jevon Carter 30.2m
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Tenacious point-of-attack defense (+7.5) was overshadowed by a complete inability to generate offense. He clanked multiple open perimeter looks, allowing the opposing defense to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. His high-energy hustle (+4.0) simply wasn't enough to compensate for playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 30.2m -15.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Jett Howard 13.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

A highly damaging rotation stint defined by empty possessions and defensive invisibility. He failed to connect on any of his perimeter looks, entirely neutralizing his value as a floor spacer. Without his shot falling, his lack of secondary skills left him as a severe minus on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 13.0m -6.6
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Provided a massive spark off the bench by attacking the rim and capitalizing on pick-and-pop opportunities. His energetic screening and hustle (+3.3) created immediate mismatches that the second unit exploited. This highly efficient scoring burst completely flipped the momentum during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 12.5m -6.4
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A surprisingly negative defensive rating (-0.5) during a brief stint limited his overall effectiveness. He converted his only offensive opportunity but struggled to make his usual disruptive impact in the passing lanes. The short leash prevented him from establishing any real rhythm on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 8.8m -4.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Bleeding value in just three minutes of garbage time, his impact score plummeted due to an empty offensive possession and zero peripheral stats. He looked out of sync with the offensive sets, failing to register any hustle or defensive metrics. It was a completely hollow cameo appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 3.0m -1.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 37.4m
29
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+5.7

Heavy shot volume and poor perimeter efficiency dragged down what could have been a monster impact score. However, his strong defensive reads (+9.5) and ability to generate looks for teammates kept his overall net rating in the green. His relentless downhill pressure forced defensive rotations, even when the jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.5
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 37.4m -19.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jalen Duren 33.9m
16
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.6

Despite a dip from his recent elite scoring stretch, his overall value remained strongly positive due to excellent rim protection (+8.7 defense) and high-motor plays (+6.7 hustle). He anchored the interior effectively, generating second-chance opportunities that kept possessions alive. The combination of physical screening and paint deterrence heavily outweighed the slight drop in offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +8.7
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 33.9m -17.3
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 32.6m
23
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.2

A massive scoring surge fueled a dominant +19.5 box impact, capitalizing on favorable matchups in the mid-range. He paired this aggressive offensive output with surprisingly stout defensive positioning (+9.0) to suffocate his assignment. This two-way execution created a commanding presence that dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.0
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 32.6m -16.7
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 25.2m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.4

Impact cratered (-14.4) entirely due to a complete perimeter freeze-out, missing all of his looks from deep. Without his gravity bending the defense, his lack of secondary playmaking became a glaring liability. He offered virtually no resistance or hustle metrics to offset the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 25.2m -12.8
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 20.9m
9
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.5

Elite defensive metrics (+10.5) and relentless hustle (+6.2) drove a massive overall impact score. By taking only high-percentage looks around the rim, he maximized his offensive value without demanding high usage. His energy on the wing completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm during a highly productive rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +10.5
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 20.9m -10.7
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

A near-neutral overall impact masked a highly active performance highlighted by strong hustle metrics (+4.3). His inability to connect from deep erased the value generated by his aggressive slashing and transition play. The resulting spacing issues slightly outweighed his positive defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 26.3m -13.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 20.1m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc torpedoed his overall effectiveness. While he provided marginal defensive value, the empty possessions from deep stalled offensive momentum during his second-unit minutes. He failed to pressure the rim enough to compensate for the cold perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 20.1m -10.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

A lack of offensive involvement and minimal hustle plays resulted in a negative net rating. He struggled to find his spots within the half-court offense, largely floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention. Though his defensive positioning was adequate, the passive offensive approach hurt the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 18.4m -9.3
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 14.1m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Maximizing a brief rotation stint, he generated solid defensive (+3.2) and hustle (+3.3) metrics by converting his only look. His activity level in the paint disrupted opponent rebounding lanes, proving highly efficient despite the low usage. He perfectly executed the role of an energy big off the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 14.1m -7.2
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Excellent point-of-attack defense (+7.3) barely kept his overall impact above water after a disastrous shooting night. He forced several tough looks on the other end, but his own forced shots and missed jumpers killed offensive flow. The stark contrast between his defensive intensity and offensive inefficiency defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 11.2m -5.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1