GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 39.7m
23
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.0

High-volume floor spacing forced the defense into impossible rotations, even if the perimeter efficiency was slightly uneven. He leveraged his length brilliantly on the other end, acting as a devastating free safety to rack up a +9.2 defensive impact. Those disruptive plays in the passing lanes consistently ignited the fast break.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +9.2
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 39.7m -24.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 35.0m
25
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.6

Relentless perimeter volume stretched the defense to its breaking point and opened up driving lanes for teammates. He hunted his shot aggressively in transition, punishing late closeouts with a barrage of deep makes. This floor-spacing gravity, combined with sturdy wing defense (+5.0), drove a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 35.0m -21.3
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dejounte Murray 29.6m
17
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-6.3

A glittering playmaking line completely masked a disastrous floor-general performance riddled with careless live-ball giveaways. He repeatedly forced passes into tight pick-and-roll windows, fueling opponent transition runs that cratered his net rating. Despite hitting key perimeter shots, his inability to value the basketball bled massive value.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 29.6m -18.1
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Zion Williamson 27.7m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Unstoppable interior bullying was heavily mitigated by careless ball security in traffic. While he generated massive gravity every time he touched the paint, forced passes out of double-teams led to momentum-killing live-ball turnovers. The sheer efficiency of his rim attempts barely kept his net impact above water.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 27.7m -16.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Herbert Jones 26.3m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

Absolute defensive mastery defined this performance, as he completely erased the opponent's primary creator from the game. His elite screen navigation and relentless ball pressure generated a massive +10.8 defensive rating. He didn't need offensive volume to dominate, relying instead on deflections and loose-ball recoveries (+5.8 hustle) to swing momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +10.8
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 26.3m -16.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Active hands in drop coverage disrupted the opponent's pick-and-roll rhythm, yielding a strong +5.5 defensive rating. He consistently rolled hard to the rim, collapsing the defense and creating secondary scoring opportunities. This steady, mistake-free execution provided a reliable anchor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.2m -15.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Derik Queen 19.4m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Relentless physicality in the paint allowed him to live at the foul line, driving a highly efficient scoring output. He consistently established deep post position, forcing the defense into costly rotation mistakes and hacking fouls. This brute-force approach yielded a massive positive impact without requiring heavy field goal volume.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.9%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 19.4m -11.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 18.8m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite vertical spacing and intimidating rim protection anchored the interior during his minutes. He deterred multiple drives at the summit, translating into a robust +6.4 defensive metric that stifled the opponent's paint attacks. His willingness to do the dirty work on the glass provided crucial extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 18.8m -11.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Defensive miscommunications and poor closeouts negated a highly efficient shooting performance. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, easily bypassing his initial pressure to collapse the defense. The resulting scramble situations bled points at a rate that his tidy offensive execution couldn't overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 18.4m -11.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
LAC LA Clippers
S Brook Lopez 31.5m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

A frigid night from the perimeter dragged his overall impact into the red despite excellent rim protection. He altered multiple shots in the paint to boost his defensive metrics (+4.2), but the empty possessions from deep stalled the offense. The spacing issues created by his missed trail threes ultimately neutralized his strong hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 31.5m -19.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 29.0m
25
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Elite shot selection fueled a highly efficient scoring night that anchored the half-court offense. His suffocating perimeter defense generated a massive +7.7 defensive impact rating, completely disrupting the opponent's primary actions. The combination of high-value perimeter makes and zero wasted possessions resulted in a dominant overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +7.7
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 29.0m -17.7
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.6

Offensive invisibility completely tanked his overall rating, as missed perimeter looks created dead-end possessions. While his point-of-attack defense remained disruptive (+3.9), it couldn't mask the severe spacing issues he caused on the other end. Opponents actively sagged off him, bogging down the entire half-court scheme.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 29.0m -17.7
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Darius Garland 28.8m
13
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.1

Passive playmaking and a sharp drop in scoring volume kept his net impact hovering right around neutral. He navigated ball screens well to generate a +4.3 defensive rating, but failed to apply his usual rim pressure on offense. The lack of aggressive downhill drives allowed the defense to stay home on shooters.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 28.8m -17.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S John Collins 24.3m
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Relentless interior finishing drove a massive box score impact despite coming up empty from beyond the arc. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, generating high-value looks at the rim. Strong hustle metrics (+3.5) compensated for a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 24.3m -14.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 91.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Kris Dunn 25.9m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

Severe offensive limitations cratered his overall impact despite respectable perimeter defense. He struggled to initiate sets, leading to stagnant possessions and low-quality looks late in the shot clock. Even a pair of timely spot-up triples couldn't salvage a disastrous stint of half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 25.9m -15.9
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Opportunistic cutting and decisive drives fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He paired that smart shot selection with excellent weak-side defensive rotations (+5.5) to consistently blow up opponent actions. This two-way reliability provided a massive stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 23.4m -14.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Flawless finishing around the basket was completely undone by defensive lapses and likely foul trouble. He consistently lost his man in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points in the paint that negated his offensive efficiency. A lack of discipline on closeouts ultimately dragged his net score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 19.4m -11.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Kobe Sanders 14.6m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Disastrous shot selection and forced perimeter looks derailed the offense during his minutes. He consistently settled for contested jumpers early in the clock, fueling transition opportunities for the opponent. The resulting empty possessions completely overwhelmed his marginal hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 14.6m -9.0
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A brief, disjointed stint was marred by rushed perimeter attempts that failed to draw iron. He struggled to match the game's physicality, getting easily displaced on defensive switches. Those quick, empty offensive trips prevented the unit from establishing any rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 4.7m -2.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Flawless execution in a micro-stint provided an immediate jolt of energy to the rotation. He capitalized on broken plays with decisive cuts to the rim, maximizing his limited touches. Active hands in the passing lanes (+2.3 defense) further amplified his brief but highly effective appearance.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 4.7m -2.8
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Complete offensive invisibility during his brief run left the floor unbalanced. He passed up open looks and failed to bend the defense, allowing opponents to overload the strong side. A lack of aggression essentially turned his minutes into a 4-on-5 scenario offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.7m -2.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0