GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 36.3m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Blistering perimeter shot-making was entirely negated by defensive bleeding on the other end of the floor. He punished drop coverages relentlessly from deep, yet struggled to contain dribble penetration, resulting in a wash for his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 36.3m -19.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Paolo Banchero 36.2m
32
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.6

Bullied his way to his spots with a massive surge in offensive aggression, generating high-quality looks through sheer physical mismatches. His ability to collapse the defense and kick out to shooters perfectly complemented his own interior dominance.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 36.2m -19.2
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Suggs 32.6m
14
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.1

Balanced two-way play resulted in a neutral rating, highlighted by aggressive perimeter defense that disrupted the opposing backcourt. He hunted his shot well from deep, but a few forced reads in traffic prevented a breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.4
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 32.6m -17.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Clanking wide-open spot-up opportunities completely derailed his offensive rating and stalled half-court sets. The inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to pack the paint, compounding the damage of his shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 31.7m -16.8
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

A sudden freeze from beyond the arc broke a highly efficient three-game stretch and cramped the team's spacing. He anchored the paint admirably on defense, but the perimeter bricks allowed opposing bigs to camp in the lane.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 28.9m -15.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jett Howard 19.7m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

An abysmal shooting night from the perimeter cratered his value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks against set defenses. To his credit, he maintained high energy on closeouts, but the offensive black hole was too deep to climb out of.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -57.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 19.7m -10.4
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 18.7m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Over-aggression on offense led to a high volume of inefficient attempts that bogged down the second unit's rhythm. While he applied his trademark ball pressure, the forced shots early in the clock gave away too many empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 18.7m -9.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Hemorrhaged value on both ends of the floor, combining forced shots in the paint with a complete lack of rim protection. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, exposing his slow lateral movement to devastating effect.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -109.4
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 12.6m -6.7
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 10.3m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

A dramatic cooling off from his recent hyper-efficient streak limited his offensive punch, but he found other ways to contribute. High-motor closeouts and aggressive weak-side rebounding kept his overall impact slightly in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +60.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 10.3m -5.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 7.0m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Operated strictly as a defensive specialist during his brief stint, showing good awareness but zero offensive ambition. His reluctance to even look at the basket allowed defenders to play free safety and double the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -106.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 7.0m -3.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided a brief but effective burst of interior defense during his limited rotation minutes. He walled off the paint well and altered a few drives, doing exactly what was required in a specialized rim-protection role.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 5.9m -3.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
40
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.9

An absolute masterclass in offensive initiation and defensive disruption drove an astronomical overall rating. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages effortlessly, punishing every switch while generating massive value through deflections and transition pushes.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 39.3%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +10.2
Raw total +38.7
Avg player in 35.6m -18.8
Impact +19.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 33.2m
20
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.6

Two-way dominance fueled a massive positive rating, anchored by elite rim protection that completely altered the opponent's shot profile. An aggressive offensive approach yielded a massive scoring surge, forcing defensive rotations that opened up the entire floor.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +9.1
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 33.2m -17.6
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 13.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ajay Mitchell 28.5m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

Increased scoring volume masked a dip in shot quality, resulting in empty-calorie production that failed to move the needle. Defensive lapses at the point of attack ultimately dragged his net rating into the red despite the offensive aggression.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 28.5m -15.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 18.5m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Impact was dragged down by a perimeter shooting slump that stalled offensive momentum and allowed defenders to sag into the paint. Despite remaining a physical deterrent on the wing, his inability to space the floor clogged driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 18.5m -9.9
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.0

A complete lack of scoring gravity severely limited his overall effectiveness despite excellent facilitating from the high post. He kept possessions alive with relentless activity on the glass, but the offense essentially played four-on-five whenever he looked at the rim.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 16.4m -8.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Alex Caruso 23.7m
2
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Elite defensive instincts and relentless hustle plays salvaged a positive rating during a nearly invisible offensive outing. He generated crucial extra possessions by diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble handoffs, proving his value doesn't rely on shot-making.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +38.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 23.7m -12.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Low offensive usage prevented him from making a significant dent in the game, though his point-of-attack defense remained stout. He operated mostly as a bystander on offense, failing to capitalize on the spacing created by the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 22.5m -12.0
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Isaiah Joe 21.7m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A sharp decline in perimeter volume neutralized his primary weapon, allowing the defense to cheat off him and focus their attention elsewhere. While his defensive rotations were surprisingly crisp, the lack of floor-spacing gravity tanked his overall influence.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 21.7m -11.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Kept his head above water by stretching the floor just enough to pull bigs out of the paint, paired with solid positional defense. A few timely rotations to draw charges helped offset a generally inefficient shooting night from the field.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 21.4m -11.3
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 12.4m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Struggled to navigate screens defensively, bleeding value on that end of the floor which erased his modest offensive contributions. His shot selection was passable, but an inability to stay in front of his man proved costly during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 12.4m -6.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

A brief cameo snapped a four-game streak of highly efficient shooting, leaving him without enough runway to truly impact the game. He managed to grab a few contested boards in traffic but otherwise blended into the background.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 6.1m -3.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0