GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 29.8m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Clunky shot creation and struggles to separate from primary defenders tanked his overall effectiveness. He frequently forced contested looks late in the shot clock, bailing out the opposing defense. A pattern of slow rotations on the perimeter further compounded his frustrating two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 29.8m -14.1
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 26.3m
11
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

Passive offensive engagement and an inability to finish through contact resulted in a surprisingly steep negative rating. He routinely settled for contested mid-range fadeaways rather than using his size to bully mismatches in the paint. Despite putting in respectable work on the defensive glass, his lack of scoring gravity stalled the primary unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 26.3m -12.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 26.0m
7
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-6.7

A disastrous shooting night entirely overshadowed his elite point-of-attack defensive pressure. Clanking multiple open looks from deep allowed defenders to cheat into the passing lanes, severely cramping the floor for his teammates. While his relentless ball-denial generated several turnovers, the offensive dead weight ultimately sank his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.1%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense -6.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 26.0m -12.4
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 6
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Bully-ball tactics in the restricted area established a highly efficient interior presence that anchored the frontcourt. He consistently sealed off his man early in the shot clock, converting deep post touches with ease. Paired with disciplined drop-coverage defense, his physical playstyle yielded a robust positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 25.1m -11.9
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Franz Wagner 19.8m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Brutal perimeter inefficiency dragged his overall value into the red, as he repeatedly bricked wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities. Opponents sagged off him entirely during a crucial second-quarter stretch, completely bogging down the half-court offense. While he found some success slashing to the rim, the sheer volume of wasted outside attempts was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 19.8m -9.4
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 26.9m
17
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Tunnel vision on the offensive end resulted in a surprisingly flat net rating despite his efficient scoring output. He capitalized beautifully on transition leak-outs, but offered virtually zero resistance when targeted on defense. Operating strictly as a play-finisher meant his overall value was entirely dependent on whether his jumpers were falling.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.6
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 26.9m -12.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.8

High-IQ connective passing and seamless offensive flow drove a quietly stellar positive impact. Instead of forcing his own shot, he consistently manipulated the defense to find cutters and open shooters out of the high post. Smart positional awareness on the defensive end rounded out a mature, team-first performance.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -25.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 23.0m -11.1
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 15.5m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

An inability to penetrate the defense or create separation led to a stagnant, highly negative offensive shift. He spent most of his minutes floating on the perimeter, failing to pressure the rim or collapse the opposing scheme. Even his trademark on-ball defensive peskiness wasn't enough to salvage the wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 15.5m -7.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 15.4m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Tremendous effort on loose balls kept his impact near neutral during a low-usage stint. He set bruising screens to free up ball-handlers but struggled to establish deep post position against stronger matchups. Ultimately, his lack of offensive gravity allowed the defense to crowd the paint without penalty.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 15.4m -7.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Jett Howard 11.5m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Forcing contested looks off the dribble disrupted the second unit's rhythm and capped his effectiveness. He struggled to find clean shooting pockets against aggressive closeouts, settling for low-percentage floaters in the lane. A lack of secondary playmaking meant his cold shooting directly stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 11.5m -5.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Defensive miscommunications and blown assignments at the point of attack quickly drove his rating into the red. He looked rushed when attacking the basket, resulting in wild layup attempts that sparked opponent fast breaks. The game simply moved too fast for him during this brief rotational appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 7.5m -3.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Getting bullied off his spots in the paint neutralized his usual interior effectiveness. He repeatedly forced heavily contested hooks over taller defenders rather than kicking out to open shooters. This stubborn shot selection quickly derailed the bench unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 7.5m -3.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 5.7m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Hesitancy to let it fly from the perimeter allowed defenders to completely ignore him in half-court sets. While he made a couple of decent connective passes, his total lack of scoring threat gummed up the spacing. He essentially operated as an offensive zero during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 5.7m -2.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S CJ McCollum 33.6m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Icy perimeter execution cratered his overall value, with forced mid-range pull-ups killing multiple possessions. Surprisingly, his off-ball defensive rotations were exceptionally sharp, generating several timely deflections to stop fast breaks. Ultimately, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips outweighed his gritty effort on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 33.6m -16.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Johnson 33.5m
18
pts
14
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.8

Perimeter struggles severely dragged down his overall rating, as clanking multiple wide-open looks from deep stalled offensive momentum. Despite providing solid weak-side rim protection, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint. A pattern of forced drives into traffic ultimately neutralized his otherwise strong defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 33.5m -15.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
32
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.7

An absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency drove a staggering positive net impact. He punished drop coverage relentlessly from beyond the arc while simultaneously suffocating ball-handlers at the point of attack. This performance was defined by a blistering third-quarter scoring barrage that completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.4
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 33.3m -15.9
Impact +18.7
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Dyson Daniels 31.1m
15
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.2

Relentless activity on the glass and in passing lanes fueled a massive overall impact. His defensive disruption consistently sparked transition opportunities, anchoring the perimeter defense against primary matchups. The combination of elite hustle metrics and disciplined shot selection made him an undeniable two-way force.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 31.1m -14.8
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 30.6m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Defensive versatility salvaged a rough interior shooting night, as he successfully switched onto smaller guards on the perimeter. Settling for heavily contested looks in the paint suppressed his offensive value. However, his willingness to step out and hit timely trail threes kept the defense honest during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 30.6m -14.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Surgical cutting and decisive rim attacks generated a highly efficient offensive burst that spiked his overall rating. By aggressively exploiting mismatches in the post, he forced the defense into early rotations. The complete absence of rebounding effort was the only blemish on an otherwise lethal scoring shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 18.6m -8.7
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 14.6m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Defensive anchor duties proved too much to handle, as he was repeatedly targeted and exposed in high pick-and-roll actions. Converting efficiently around the basket provided some offensive relief, but it couldn't mask the bleeding on the other end. His inability to secure contested defensive boards gave the opponent crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 14.6m -6.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Disciplined shot selection and mistake-free basketball resulted in a quietly positive stint. He capitalized perfectly on backdoor cuts when defenders overplayed the passing lanes. Solid positional defense ensured he never compromised the team's scheme, even if his overall volume was muted.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +43.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 13.3m -6.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 12.2m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

High-energy closeouts and loose-ball recoveries kept his impact hovering near neutral despite limited offensive touches. He operated strictly as a floor-spacer, punishing a missed rotation with a timely corner make. A lack of playmaking aggression ultimately prevented him from swinging the momentum further into the positive.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 12.2m -5.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Complete offensive invisibility led to a negative net rating during his brief stint on the floor. Rushing his perimeter attempts disrupted the team's spacing and flow against second-unit matchups. While he showed flashes of active hands on defense, the lack of scoring gravity made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 10.8m -5.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 2.8m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Maximized a fleeting garbage-time appearance by executing decisively on his lone offensive touch. A quick read leading to a smooth finish at the rim highlighted his readiness off the bench. He managed to inject a quick burst of positive value without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +69.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 2.8m -1.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Rushed decision-making during a brief cameo resulted in empty possessions and a slight negative rating. Forcing a contested perimeter look early in the shot clock disrupted the second unit's rhythm. He did manage to stay attached to his man defensively, preventing further damage.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +69.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 2.8m -1.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.0

A spectacular micro-burst of perimeter marksmanship completely tilted the scoreboard in just under three minutes. Catch-and-shoot perfection from the corners punished the defense for sagging off him in transition. This flawless shooting display single-handedly generated a massive positive swing despite his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +69.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 2.8m -1.4
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0