GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 37.0m
25
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.3

Commanded massive defensive attention and made quality reads, but forced passes into crowded paint areas resulted in devastating live-ball turnovers. His physical on-ball defense was a bright spot, though the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions nearly erased his positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 37.0m -20.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 82.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 35.7m
35
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.1

Punished drop coverages relentlessly with pristine shot selection and decisive drives to the rim. His ability to navigate off-ball screens without committing offensive fouls maximized his scoring gravity, driving a massive positive swing for the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.8%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +32.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 35.7m -19.3
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Anchored the paint with superb verticality and generated multiple stops via timely weak-side rotations. Unfortunately, his offensive impact was severely hampered by fumbled interior passes and getting stripped repeatedly in traffic.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 35.4m -19.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Showcased excellent spatial awareness as a cutter, but his overall rating was dragged down by a series of costly offensive fouls on moving screens. The scoring efficiency was undeniable, yet his struggles to secure long rebounds gave opponents critical second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 34.3m -18.4
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 31.8m
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

An absolute terror at the point of attack, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs and racking up deflections. However, his erratic decision-making in transition and a tendency to force contested perimeter shots neutralized his elite defensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 31.8m -17.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Jett Howard 22.0m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Spaced the floor adequately but bled value on the defensive end by consistently losing his man on baseline cuts. Poor closeout angles and a pair of bad-pass turnovers in the second quarter further depressed his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 22.0m -11.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jevon Carter 20.2m
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Provided sturdy on-ball pressure against opposing guards, funneling drivers toward the help defense effectively. His impact fell into the red due to stagnant offensive spacing and a tendency to pick up his dribble prematurely against traps.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 20.2m -10.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Brought his usual abrasive physicality to the frontcourt, drawing a key charge and battling for positioning. Despite the defensive grit, his inability to finish through contact and a cluster of illegal screens severely limited his offensive utility.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 12.6m -6.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 11.0m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Found soft spots in the zone for easy finishes, but his lack of awareness in defensive rotations led to wide-open corner threes. A pair of careless traveling violations stunted the momentum during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 11.0m -5.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 36.8m
30
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.0

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration was heavily offset by a string of lazy passes that fueled opponent fast breaks. His defensive effort waxed and waned, but it was the sheer volume of high-leverage turnovers in the third quarter that dragged his elite creation metrics back to earth.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 36.8m -19.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
25
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.2

Shot selection was the primary culprit here, as a steady diet of contested, late-clock jumpers severely limited his offensive efficiency. Although he fought hard defensively and generated deflections, the high volume of empty possessions and forced isolation plays ultimately flattened his net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/24 (37.5%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 36.1m -19.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Evan Mobley 31.6m
18
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Dominated the interior with high-percentage finishes and strong rim protection, but his net impact was dampened by careless passing out of double teams. His tendency to bring the ball down low allowed guards to easily strip him, erasing several high-value scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 31.6m -17.0
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 30.2m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

The scoring volume masked a disastrous defensive stint where opponents repeatedly targeted him on switches. His overall impact plunged due to costly live-ball turnovers and poor transition awareness that fueled fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 30.2m -16.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dean Wade 20.0m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

A complete offensive non-factor whose reluctance to shoot bogged down half-court possessions. While his weak-side rotations and closeouts offered some defensive resistance, the lack of spacing and multiple unforced errors dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 20.0m -10.7
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Keon Ellis 31.1m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

A textbook two-way performance defined by relentless point-of-attack defense and timely screen navigation. His elite hustle metrics reflect multiple extra possessions generated through offensive rebounds and diving for loose balls, perfectly complementing his lethal catch-and-shoot execution.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 31.1m -16.7
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.6

Capitalized on deep post positioning to generate high-quality looks around the basket. While his pick-and-roll drop coverage remains a vulnerability, his aggressive screening and physical box-outs provided a solid foundation for the bench unit's success.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 18.6m -10.1
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.0

Completely derailed the second unit's rhythm by over-dribbling and forcing contested floaters early in the shot clock. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards forced constant rotation breakdowns, making him a massive liability on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.4
Raw total -5.4
Avg player in 17.8m -9.6
Impact -15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 17.7m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Brought undeniable energy to the floor with constant off-ball movement and loose-ball recoveries. However, his aggressive closeouts led to damaging foul trouble, and rushed decisions in the paint tanked his overall offensive value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense -1.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 17.7m -9.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1