GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 35.5m
20
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.1

A masterclass in offensive flow and decision-making drove an elite impact score. He punished defensive closeouts with decisive drives and found cutters with pinpoint accuracy, elevating the entire unit. His physical on-ball defense against bigger wings added significant value to an already stellar performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 35.5m -17.2
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Trey Murphy III 34.7m
27
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Lethal floor-spacing and deep shooting gravity completely warped the opposing defensive scheme. He capitalized on transition chaos, finding the corners for back-breaking triples during a pivotal third-quarter run. His length on the perimeter also disrupted passing lanes, adding a layer of defensive utility to his scoring barrage.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 34.7m -16.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Zion Williamson 33.0m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Unstoppable bully-ball tactics in the paint forced the defense into constant rotation, creating a strong positive net rating. He drew multiple double-teams on the block, generating secondary actions that kept the offense humming. Surprisingly active weak-side rim protection further boosted his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 33.0m -15.9
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Herbert Jones 30.1m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite defensive metrics were entirely offset by a clunky offensive showing that stalled momentum. He bricked several wide-open looks from the mid-range, allowing the defense to cheat off him and crowd the paint. Despite generating multiple deflections, his inability to convert on the other end resulted in a flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 30.1m -14.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Yves Missi 27.3m
11
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Flawless shot selection around the basket anchored a solid two-way performance. He excelled as a roll man, setting bruising screens and diving with purpose to collapse the defense. While his impact was positive, occasional late rotations in drop coverage prevented his score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 27.3m -13.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Poor shot selection and a tendency to over-dribble dragged his overall impact into the red. He repeatedly challenged rim protectors rather than making the extra pass, resulting in empty possessions and transition run-outs. A few solid defensive possessions fighting over screens weren't enough to salvage his rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 23.5m -11.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

An absolute zero on the offensive end, his inability to connect on a single field goal attempt severely damaged the team's spacing. He looked hesitant when catching the ball on the perimeter, completely disrupting the offensive flow. While his interior defense remained sturdy, the offensive black hole he created was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 23.1m -11.1
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jordan Poole 17.2m
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Reckless shot attempts early in the shot clock completely derailed the offensive rhythm during his minutes. He compounded his shooting woes with apathetic transition defense, frequently failing to match up and surrendering easy layups. The lack of defensive resistance made him a glaring target for the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 17.2m -8.4
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 15.5m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Sluggish defensive footwork and a failure to secure loose balls led to a heavily negative impact score. He was consistently beaten to his spots in the post, forcing teammates to over-help and concede open perimeter looks. Offensively, he struggled to establish deep position, settling for low-percentage hooks.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 15.5m -7.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
LAC LA Clippers
S Jordan Miller 37.0m
11
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.7

Stellar defensive activity and strong rebounding metrics were undone by a dreadful shooting performance. He forced several contested looks late in the shot clock, leading to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, stalling the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 37.0m -17.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 34.3m
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays defined this highly impactful performance. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions, forcing ball handlers into uncomfortable decisions. While his scoring volume was low, his timely perimeter shooting kept the defense honest and rewarded his gritty two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +8.0
Defense +9.0
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 34.3m -16.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Extreme offensive efficiency drove a massive box score impact, as he capitalized on high-percentage looks near the rim. However, his defensive metrics were surprisingly muted for his athletic profile, dragging down his overall net positive. A pattern of allowing straight-line drives kept his defensive rating barely above water.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 33.6m -16.2
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 28.8m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.6

A brutal offensive outing completely tanked his impact score, highlighted by clanking all of his attempts from beyond the arc. He struggled to establish deep post position, settling for heavily contested floaters that fueled transition opportunities the other way. Even his usually reliable rim protection failed to offset the damage caused by empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 28.8m -14.0
Impact -16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S John Collins 27.5m
18
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Despite solid perimeter shooting, his overall impact sank into the negative due to hidden costs on the interior. Poor rotational awareness led to giving up easy buckets, neutralizing his scoring output. His inability to secure contested defensive rebounds allowed crucial second-chance opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 27.5m -13.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Sizzling perimeter efficiency masked a surprisingly negative overall impact driven by defensive liabilities. He was repeatedly hunted in isolation during the third quarter, conceding straight-line drives that collapsed the defensive shell. The scoring punch simply couldn't outpace the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 27.3m -13.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 19.7m
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

High-level defensive rotations and active hands generated a positive net impact despite a lack of offensive rhythm. He completely locked down his primary assignment during a crucial second-quarter stretch, denying entry passes and blowing up dribble handoffs. The defensive value far outweighed the empty possessions caused by his erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 19.7m -9.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.8

Dominant interior finishing and excellent rim-running fueled a massive positive impact in limited minutes. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor, generating high-value transition opportunities. Combined with disciplined verticality at the rim, he completely controlled the paint during his stints.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 19.2m -9.3
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Christie 12.4m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Invisible on the offensive end, his inability to generate any scoring gravity severely hampered the second unit's spacing. He was frequently targeted on switches, though he managed to salvage some value through active closeouts. Ultimately, the lack of offensive production made it impossible to stay on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 12.4m -6.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2