GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 37.6m
30
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.9

A dominant offensive workload and aggressive mismatch hunting carried his massive net rating. He generated high-value scoring opportunities at will, masking relatively quiet defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +27.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 37.6m -20.1
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Elite defensive positioning and rim protection were completely undone by poor offensive execution. Missed interior looks and a lack of scoring punch cratered what should have been a highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.3
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 35.4m -18.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 34.8m
23
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.7

Efficient perimeter execution and secondary playmaking drove a solid positive rating. He picked his spots perfectly within the offense, avoiding the negative value of forced shots.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 34.8m -18.6
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 34.0m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.0

A severe lack of offensive rhythm and missed shots tanked his overall impact. Despite maintaining his usual defensive intensity, his struggles to convert looks crippled the starting unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 34.0m -18.2
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Highly efficient shot selection kept his head just above water. However, quiet stretches and a lack of defensive disruption prevented a higher overall score.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 93.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 32.3m -17.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Cain 21.8m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Hyper-efficient shot selection and timely cuts fueled a highly productive bench performance. He capitalized on every touch while providing steady defensive value to round out a stellar stint.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 21.8m -11.6
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 13.5m
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Efficient shooting in limited action wasn't enough to overcome a lack of overall floor presence. He failed to generate the defensive havoc that usually justifies his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 13.5m -7.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 12.6m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite a slight uptick in scoring volume, a lack of rebounding and hustle stats limited his effectiveness. He struggled to anchor the paint defensively during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 12.6m -6.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A brief, low-impact stint was dragged down by defensive liabilities. He converted a perimeter look but offered too little resistance on the other end to break even.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 7.9m -4.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Perfect shooting in a micro-stint provided a quick offensive jolt. He maximized his brief opportunity by converting his looks without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +46.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 5.2m -2.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Blanking on the stat sheet offensively immediately tanked his value. Missing multiple looks in under five minutes created empty possessions that the defense couldn't salvage.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 4.8m -2.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 38.6m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Defensive positioning and high-level hustle metrics kept his value afloat despite a significant drop in scoring volume. He anchored the paint effectively, proving his worth extends far beyond offensive finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +6.1
Defense +8.2
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 38.6m -20.6
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 38.5m
33
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+8.8

A massive surge in scoring volume and elite playmaking anchored his highly positive impact. He systematically dismantled the defense in isolation, ensuring his offensive production far outweighed a quiet night on the other end.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +28.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 38.5m -20.5
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

Elite rim protection and a relentless motor fueled a stellar net rating. His ability to generate extra possessions through hustle plays completely overshadowed a low-usage offensive role.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +5.9
Defense +9.1
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 33.8m -18.0
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Malik Monk 32.4m
13
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

Erratic shot selection from beyond the arc limited his net positive contributions. He provided a spark with his playmaking, but the sheer volume of missed threes kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 32.4m -17.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Devin Carter 24.9m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

A high volume of missed perimeter shots severely dragged down his overall impact. While he provided solid defensive resistance, erratic shot selection ultimately sank his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 24.9m -13.3
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
23
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Blistering perimeter shooting drove a massive box score rating, though defensive lapses ate into his final margin. His elite floor-spacing stretched the defense, but he gave back significant value on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense -2.6
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 35.0m -18.6
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

A sharp drop in offensive involvement limited his ability to impact the game positively. He managed some hustle stats, but the lack of scoring gravity hurt the second unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 15.8m -8.4
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Provided zero resistance or hustle metrics during his rotational minutes. The complete lack of secondary stats meant his modest shooting efficiency wasn't enough to stay in the positive.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 12.2m -6.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Defensive struggles in a short stint doomed his overall rating. He failed to replicate his recent high-efficiency scoring, leaving nothing to offset the defensive bleed.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.6
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 7.0m -3.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Barely saw the floor and failed to register any meaningful offensive stats. Defensive missteps in a micro-stint pushed his brief appearance into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0