GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 42.3m
18
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.1

Forced, contested mid-range jumpers and stagnant isolation possessions cratered his offensive value. Even with respectable effort on the glass, his inability to read the defense and adjust his shot profile resulted in a slew of empty trips down the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 42.3m -23.8
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Desmond Bane 42.0m
22
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.3

High-level shot creation and playmaking were heavily offset by defensive struggles against quicker matchups on the perimeter. He generated plenty of offense, but the points he surrendered in isolation situations kept his overall impact essentially flat.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 42.0m -23.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
26
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.7

Suffocating perimeter defense completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, driving a masterclass in two-way versatility. He paired this defensive dominance with decisive, aggressive drives to the basket, punishing closeouts to generate a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.1m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +11.9
Raw total +35.7
Avg player in 41.1m -23.0
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 34.1m
28
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.6

Relentless downhill attacking and superb decision-making in the pick-and-roll fueled a massive offensive breakout. He consistently collapsed the defense to create high-value opportunities, while his trademark ball pressure disrupted the opponent's timing just enough to secure a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 34.1m -19.0
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
19
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Dominant interior positioning and elite screen-setting created massive structural advantages for the offense. He anchored the paint with disciplined verticality on defense, ensuring that his highly efficient finishing on the other end translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.9
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 33.8m -19.0
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
Jevon Carter 21.5m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Over-dribbling and a failure to initiate offensive sets efficiently bogged down the second unit's momentum. His usually stout point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to compensate for the stagnant, low-quality possessions he orchestrated.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 21.5m -12.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jett Howard 19.8m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Timely weak-side rotations and active closeouts provided a subtle defensive lift that kept his impact above water. Offensively, he struggled to find his rhythm off the bounce, but his spacing gravity prevented the floor from shrinking.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 19.8m -11.1
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 13.8m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped his team's spacing, allowing defenders to aggressively double-team the ball handlers. While he contributed with active hands in the passing lanes, playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg -41.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 13.8m -7.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Failing to provide defensive resistance at the rim allowed opponents to score easily during his shifts, negating his offensive contributions. He forced a few awkward finishes in traffic, leading to transition opportunities going the other way.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 11.2m -6.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Poor hands in the pick-and-roll and missed assignments in drop coverage defined a brief, clunky stint. He failed to establish any physical presence in the paint, making his short time on the floor a distinct negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.1m -2.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Logged barely enough time to break a sweat, offering a momentary defensive presence before heading back to the bench. His single missed jumper was the only notable event in an otherwise microscopic sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bilal Coulibaly 36.9m
29
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.1

An aggressive scoring surge fueled a massive boost in offensive production, but the sheer volume of missed attempts capped his overall efficiency. He forced the issue on drives during the second half, leading to empty possessions that dragged down his net impact despite the scoring outburst.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 36.9m -20.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Will Riley 33.1m
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

Poor shot selection from the perimeter completely derailed his offensive rhythm, resulting in a steep drop-off from his recent scoring form. While he remained engaged defensively and fought for loose balls, the sheer number of wasted possessions on offense created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 33.1m -18.5
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 23.1m
16
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.8

A dominant defensive anchor performance defined his massive positive impact, completely shutting down the paint and altering opponent trajectories. He paired this elite rim protection with highly efficient finishing around the basket, breaking out of a recent slump by taking only high-value looks.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +14.1
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 23.1m -12.9
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 22.6m
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.8

An absolute deep-freeze from the floor tanked his value, as he repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock. Even a solid effort in defensive rotations and hustle metrics couldn't salvage a performance defined by offensive possessions ending in clanks.

Shooting
FG 1/11 (9.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 13.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -10.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total -4.1
Avg player in 22.6m -12.7
Impact -16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Trae Young 21.2m
15
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite playmaking and hyper-efficient shooting were largely negated by defensive lapses at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently blew past him in isolation, forcing defensive collapses that mathematically erased his brilliant offensive orchestration.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 21.2m -11.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 84.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Leaky Black 27.7m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite a surprising surge in scoring efficiency, his overall impact hovered just below neutral due to missed rotations in off-ball defense. He capitalized on open looks offensively but gave the value right back by losing his man on key backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 27.7m -15.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.2

Exceptional hustle and relentless energy on 50/50 balls provided a massive hidden boost to his team's possession battle. He supplemented this gritty defensive effort with disciplined, opportunistic scoring, taking what the defense gave him rather than forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 27.6m -15.4
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Strong positional defense and reliable rebounding anchored his steady, if unspectacular, overall contribution. However, a tendency to settle for low-percentage outside shots rather than punishing mismatches inside prevented him from registering a higher net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 20.9m -11.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.9

Ruthless efficiency on cuts and spot-up opportunities continued his streak of highly productive offensive outings. He maintained excellent spacing and capitalized on defensive breakdowns, ensuring almost every touch resulted in a high-quality scoring chance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 17.1m -9.6
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Active hands and high-motor plays in transition kept him somewhat afloat, but a lack of offensive assertiveness limited his ceiling. He blended into the background during half-court sets, failing to generate the rim pressure needed to swing his net impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 16.0m -8.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Anthony Gill 16.0m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

His recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring came to a halt as he struggled to find clean looks against physical interior defense. Without his usual offensive gravity, his lack of high-end defensive playmaking left him as a net negative in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 16.0m -9.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Entering for a brief, ineffective stint, he was marred by defensive miscommunications that immediately put the team in rotation. He failed to establish any rhythm or generate offensive flow during his limited run, rendering his minutes a slight negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0