GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 37.5m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.6

A combination of clunky shot creation and defensive miscommunications dragged his overall impact deep into the negatives (-8.6). He repeatedly drove into congested paint areas, leading to empty possessions and transition opportunities for Dallas. The scoring volume completely masked how much he gave back through poor defensive closeouts.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 37.5m -21.1
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paolo Banchero 35.6m
16
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.8

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than leveraging his physical advantage inside severely damaged his offensive efficiency. While his weak-side rim protection metrics (+8.3 Def) were genuinely impressive, they couldn't offset the damage of his stagnant isolation possessions. The offense repeatedly bogged down when he held the ball too long at the elbows.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 35.6m -20.0
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jalen Suggs 31.5m
17
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.1

Relentless point-of-attack defense (+6.6 Def) set the tone and kept his overall impact slightly above water. He was overly reliant on the three-ball, taking several ill-advised transition pull-ups that bailed out retreating defenders. The sheer volume of perimeter attempts capped his ceiling, but his defensive tenacity ensured he remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 31.5m -17.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Anthony Black 23.8m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

An inability to convert at the rim or connect from deep resulted in a barrage of empty offensive trips. He tried to compensate with high-energy ball pressure and solid rotational defense, keeping his overall impact from completely tanking. However, his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to freely cheat off him and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 23.8m -13.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.8

Surgical execution in the pick-and-roll and a refusal to waste possessions drove a stellar overall rating (+9.8). He capitalized on defensive misalignments with decisive cuts and finished through contact at the rim. His fundamental box-outs and disciplined drop coverage completely neutralized the opposition's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.6%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 23.6m -13.2
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.1

A masterclass in offensive efficiency and spatial awareness produced a game-high +17.1 impact score. He didn't force a single look, punishing defensive rotations with flawless perimeter execution and timely backdoor cuts. Pairing that perfect shooting with elite positional defense (+8.9 Def) made this a truly defining two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 127.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +8.9
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 24.8m -13.9
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 19.8m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Despite flashing incredible motor and generating multiple second-chance opportunities (+4.1 Hustle), his offensive limitations were glaringly exposed. He bricked multiple wide-open perimeter looks, allowing the defense to completely ignore him in the half-court. The resulting spacing issues suffocated his teammates' driving lanes, driving his overall impact heavily into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 19.8m -11.2
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jevon Carter 19.0m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.2

Trigger-happy shot selection from beyond the arc short-circuited several offensive possessions and fueled a negative overall rating. He failed to organize the second unit effectively, frequently jacking up contested looks early in the shot clock. While his trademark defensive pestering was present, it wasn't enough to excuse the offensive erraticism.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 19.0m -10.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Overcame a dreadful finishing night around the basket by leaning heavily into his role as an agitator and energy big. He generated extra possessions through sheer willpower (+3.3 Hustle), drawing loose-ball fouls and keeping plays alive. His willingness to sacrifice his body on screens and defensive rotations salvaged a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 12.2m -6.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 12.1m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Flawless execution around the rim on dump-offs and putbacks provided a highly efficient offensive spark. However, his overall impact was capped by sluggish pick-and-roll coverages that surrendered easy floaters to opposing guards (-1.2 Def). He maximized his touches on one end but gave up too much ground on the other.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 12.1m -6.8
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 33.4m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.5

Elite two-way execution defined this outing, spearheaded by a suffocating defensive presence (+10.8 Def) that completely disrupted Orlando's frontcourt. He paired that lockdown coverage with pristine shot selection from the perimeter, refusing to force contested looks. The combination of high-activity closeouts and timely weak-side rotations made him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 82.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +10.8
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 33.4m -18.8
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Khris Middleton 32.3m
19
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-13.0

Despite a massive scoring surge that broke him out of a recent slump, his overall impact cratered to a team-worst -13.0. This steep drop-off was driven by defensive lapses and likely costly live-ball turnovers that gave points right back to the opposition. His recurring inability to contain dribble penetration on the perimeter completely negated his offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 32.3m -18.1
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Max Christie 27.5m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.5

Perimeter passivity and an inability to create separation resulted in a severely negative overall footprint (-10.5). He settled exclusively for contested looks from beyond the arc, failing to pressure the rim or generate secondary actions for his teammates. A glaring lack of loose-ball engagement (+0.6 Hustle) further compounded his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 27.5m -15.4
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cooper Flagg 25.8m
18
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.5

A brutal night of forced jumpers and heavy isolation volume dragged down his offensive efficiency significantly. However, he salvaged a positive overall impact (+3.5) by pivoting his energy toward aggressive weak-side help defense and passing lane disruption. His willingness to grind out defensive stops when his primary scoring tools failed showed immense maturity.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.6%
USG% 40.3%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.3
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 25.8m -14.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
S Daniel Gafford 24.9m
12
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

Anchoring the paint with relentless verticality, his rim-protection metrics (+9.2 Def) pushed his overall impact into elite territory. He capitalized on every lob opportunity while maintaining exceptional discipline against pump fakes to avoid foul trouble. His sustained streak of hyper-efficient finishing is directly tied to his refusal to force bad shots in heavy traffic.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.2
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 24.9m -14.0
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
24
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Catch-and-shoot mastery fueled a massive offensive surge, as he punished defensive under-reactions on the perimeter. Despite the scoring explosion, his overall impact (+5.0) was muted by a complete absence of hustle plays (+0.0) and minimal resistance at the point of attack. He operated purely as a stationary weapon rather than a dynamic two-way threat.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +18.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 25.7m -14.4
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

Clanking a steady diet of forced floaters and heavily contested drives plummeted his usually reliable offensive output. He managed to keep the bleeding somewhat in check through tenacious on-ball defensive pressure (+7.0 Def) against opposing wings. Ultimately, his insistence on playing through a cold streak rather than deferring dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 25.1m -14.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Operating strictly as a low-usage screen setter, his overall footprint hovered just below neutral. He provided adequate positional defense and decent energy, but his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. He essentially existed as a floor-spacer who didn't actually space the floor, stalling half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.1%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 20.4m -11.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.0

Steady decision-making and a refusal to force the issue yielded a marginally positive net result. He consistently initiated the offense with crisp entry passes and took only what the defense conceded. His ability to stabilize the second unit's tempo and avoid careless turnovers was exactly what the coaching staff needed.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 13.8m -7.7
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Martin 11.1m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a brief rotational stint, resulting in a noticeable negative swing (-4.0). He was repeatedly targeted on switches, failing to navigate screens effectively and giving up driving angles. A lack of off-ball movement on offense rendered him largely invisible on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 11.1m -6.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0