GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 36.7m
39
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.9

Operated as an unstoppable offensive engine by bullying smaller defenders in the mid-post. The massive scoring spike was paired with exceptional rim-protection metrics, making this a true two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 41.6%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 36.7m -20.8
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
21
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

Punished late closeouts all night to significantly outpace his usual scoring output. His crisp off-ball movement and sturdy weak-side defense provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the starting group.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 34.0m -19.2
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Desmond Bane 32.5m
17
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.3

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc stalled out multiple offensive possessions. Despite flashing some secondary playmaking, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 32.5m -18.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Anchored the interior with disciplined drop coverage and steady screening. Continuing his streak of highly efficient finishing, he capitalized perfectly on the gravity generated by his perimeter teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 28.1m -15.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jevon Carter 23.8m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

A complete offensive non-factor whose inability to initiate sets severely crippled the second unit. The profound negative impact stemmed directly from stalled possessions and bricked bail-out jumpers late in the clock.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 23.8m -13.4
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 22.8m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Failed to replicate his recent high-efficiency play, looking hesitant when attacking closeouts. His passive approach on the wing resulted in empty minutes that bled value whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 22.8m -12.8
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 19.9m
6
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

Struggled to secure the paint against physical bigs, leading to costly second-chance opportunities for the opposition. While he facilitated reasonably well from the high post, his overall impact cratered due to soft interior defense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 19.9m -11.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Seized his rotational opportunity by aggressively attacking the basket and finishing with precision. This hyper-efficient scoring burst injected crucial life into a stagnant bench unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 18.5m -10.5
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 15.9m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Provided a brilliant spark of perimeter shot-making, nearly doubling his usual scoring output in limited action. However, his value was entirely erased by a porous defensive stint where he was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 15.9m -9.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 7.8m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Made his mark as a defensive disruptor during a brief cameo, blowing up multiple actions on the perimeter. The offensive side of the floor remained a struggle, keeping his overall impact just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 7.8m -4.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Aaron Nesmith 35.4m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Elite perimeter shot-making kept the offense humming, but his value was quietly eroded by getting caught on screens defensively. The scoring punch was effectively neutralized by giving up corresponding high-value looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 35.4m -20.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 34.8m
13
pts
7
reb
14
ast
Impact
-5.2

Heavy playmaking volume masked a disastrous defensive stint at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently broke him down off the dribble, turning his offensive orchestration into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.3
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 34.8m -19.6
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 33.5m
37
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.2

Completely hijacked the game flow by overwhelming his primary matchups in isolation. Elite defensive metrics and high-motor hustle plays compounded his massive scoring leap to drive a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 43.2%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +24.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.7
Raw total +38.1
Avg player in 33.5m -18.9
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jarace Walker 33.3m
20
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Despite extending his highly efficient shooting streak, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive rotational lapses. The offensive surge was ultimately hollowed out by giving up too many easy angles on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 33.3m -18.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jay Huff 27.7m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A sharp drop in offensive involvement severely capped his overall ceiling tonight. While he remained engaged as a rim deterrent, his inability to command defensive attention dragged down the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 27.7m -15.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 20.3m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.2

Regressed sharply from his recent hyper-efficient stretch by settling for contested looks outside the paint. His inability to anchor the interior or finish through contact rendered his minutes largely unproductive.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.0
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 20.3m -11.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.2

Completely destabilized the opposing second unit with relentless ball pressure and flawless shot selection. His ability to penetrate the paint at will created a massive swing in momentum during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 19.7m -11.1
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 18.4m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Faded into the background offensively while repeatedly losing his man on backdoor cuts. The lack of assertiveness on the wing created dead possessions that dragged down the entire lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 18.4m -10.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Obi Toppin 16.9m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Struggled to find his usual rhythm in transition, forcing him into a half-court role that limited his effectiveness. A lack of aggressive rim-runs allowed the defense to stay home, muting his overall influence.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 16.9m -9.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1