GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Herbert Jones 35.6m
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

He broke out of a recent scoring slump by punishing defensive sagging with lethal perimeter shooting. Elite point-of-attack defense constantly disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. However, a few costly rotational mistakes kept his overall net impact surprisingly muted despite the brilliant two-way efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 35.6m -20.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Trey Murphy III 33.7m
28
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.1

Utterly torching the nets with elite shot-making, he punished late closeouts with a barrage of deep threes. This offensive explosion was perfectly complemented by suffocating perimeter defense that completely erased his primary matchup. The flawless combination of high-volume efficiency and lockdown coverage drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.2
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 33.7m -19.2
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Zion Williamson 31.8m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.9

Efficient interior scoring couldn't mask how much his overall impact was dragged down by defensive lapses and poor transition containment. He failed to dictate the physical terms of the matchup, allowing too many easy angles on the other end. The solid box score numbers hid a performance lacking his usual dominant rim pressure.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 31.8m -18.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dejounte Murray 31.4m
27
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.1

Masterfully controlling the mid-range area, he used his floater and pull-up game to dissect drop coverage efficiently. Aggressive downhill attacks forced defensive rotations, opening up passing lanes for his teammates. Active hands at the point of attack rounded out a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 31.4m -17.8
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Saddiq Bey 27.8m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.2

A catastrophic shooting performance completely derailed the offense during his minutes. Repeatedly forcing contested looks early in the shot clock bled efficiency and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. This severe lack of shot discipline was the primary driver behind his team-worst impact score.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 27.8m -15.8
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Yves Missi 19.3m
6
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.1

Dominating the glass on both ends generated crucial second-chance opportunities that kept the offense humming. Vertical spacing and hard rolls to the rim collapsed the defense, while his rim protection deterred drives. It was a textbook example of impacting winning without needing a high volume of shot attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 19.3m -10.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Several offensive possessions stalled out due to a sharp drop in his scoring efficiency. He struggled to find rhythm against physical perimeter defense, settling for tough, contested looks. The inability to break down his man consistently drove his negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 16.6m -9.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 14.4m
3
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Elite interior defense and rim protection kept his overall rating from completely bottoming out. However, an inability to generate reliable offense or finish inside severely handicapped the second unit's scoring punch. He acted as a defensive anchor but an offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.0
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 14.4m -8.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

He continued his streak of flawless interior finishing by converting his only look to maintain perfect efficiency. Strong positional defense and timely hustle plays ensured his minutes were highly productive. Executing his limited role perfectly, he anchored the backup frontcourt without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 13.4m -7.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Pick-and-roll coverage proved difficult, as guards consistently turned the corner against him to yield a negative defensive impact. He also struggled to finish cleanly through traffic on his few offensive touches. The lack of rim deterrence and offensive gravity made his minutes a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 13.1m -7.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely breaking a sweat during a brief cameo at the end of the game, he failed to record a single meaningful statistic across the board. His negative rating is purely a byproduct of the team losing the micro-minutes he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -120.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Garbage-time action offered no real opportunity to showcase his usual perimeter shooting stroke. He registered a single rebound but was otherwise a ghost in the offense. The total lack of volume resulted in a negligible impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -120.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 38.0m
22
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
0.0

Despite a notable uptick in scoring volume, inefficient shot-making completely neutralized his offensive value. Strong defensive rotations and active hands kept his overall impact afloat. The heavy reliance on contested mid-range jumpers ultimately flattened his net contribution to a dead-even zero.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.5
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 38.0m -21.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Scottie Barnes 35.5m
9
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.6

An abysmal shooting night from the floor tanked his overall value despite elite defensive metrics. Settling for too many forced perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint bled offensive efficiency. Relentless weak-side rim protection was the only thing preventing a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 32.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.9
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 35.5m -20.1
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.1

He consistently broke down the primary point-of-attack defense, generating high-quality looks and finishing efficiently at all three levels. A massive scoring surge fueled a dominant offensive showing. This explosive punch was the primary engine behind his stellar net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 34.5m -19.5
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 29.6m
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

He maintained his streak of highly efficient finishing around the basket, anchoring the frontcourt during his shifts. Solid positional defense and reliable screen-setting provided a steadying presence. This low-mistake, fundamental approach yielded a steady positive impact despite the quiet scoring output.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 29.6m -16.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 28.1m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc heavily dragged down his offensive efficiency. While he managed to find some success attacking downhill, the wasted possessions on the perimeter proved too costly. A lack of high-end defensive disruption left him unable to recover the value lost through missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 28.1m -15.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Exclusively hunting three-pointers limited his offensive versatility and resulted in a subpar shooting clip. Without his usual interior finishing to balance the floor, his offensive gravity plummeted. Adequate defensive positioning wasn't enough to overcome the empty trips on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 21.2m -11.9
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jamal Shead 20.2m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

He provided a respectable spark from the perimeter by hitting a pair of timely threes. However, occasional lapses in defensive containment kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral. Energetic hustle plays nearly balanced out the minor inefficiencies.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 20.2m -11.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Forced, missed three-pointers and zero downhill pressure characterized a completely invisible offensive stint. He failed to register a single point, drastically hurting the second unit's spacing. Minor flashes of defensive activity couldn't save his rating from cratering.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 10.5m -6.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Barely factoring into the offensive game plan, he registered just a single shot attempt during his ten minutes of action. The lack of overall engagement and zero hustle stats limited his ability to influence the game. A passive approach on both ends resulted in a mild negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 10.2m -5.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Bouncing back from a brutal shooting slump, he took decisive, in-rhythm attempts that punished defensive closeouts. Off-ball movement created crucial spacing, while active hands in the passing lanes generated extra possessions. He maximized his brief stint by playing mistake-free basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 7.6m -4.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Contact around the rim bothered him, causing him to come up empty on all of his field goal attempts. Quick defensive rotations and secured contested rebounds kept his value slightly positive despite the offensive goose egg. He acted purely as a connective piece during a very brief cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

He made an immediate statistical dent in garbage time by drilling his only look from deep and drawing a foul. High-energy defensive pressure in just over a minute of play heavily skewed his per-minute metrics. This perfect micro-shift maximized every second he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +120.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0