GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 38.0m
37
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.9

Utterly dismantled drop coverages by punishing retreating bigs with lethal off-the-dribble shotmaking. His gravity warped the defensive shell, creating massive driving lanes for teammates even when he functioned as a decoy. A dominant third-quarter scoring binge effectively broke the opponent's spirit and cemented his massive positive margin.

Shooting
FG 14/24 (58.3%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +31.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +36.1
Avg player in 38.0m -21.2
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Black 34.0m
10
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.3

Offensive limitations were glaringly exposed as defenders repeatedly went under screens, daring him to shoot. His inability to punish the sag completely clogged the driving lanes for his teammates, grinding half-court sets to a halt. Despite active hands in the passing lanes, his poor shot selection at the rim severely punished the team's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 34.0m -19.0
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 32.0m
18
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Bogged down the offense with a steady diet of contested mid-range pull-ups against set defenses. He struggled to read double-teams on the block, often forcing passes that led to deflections and stalled possessions. While his weak-side rim protection provided some value, his sluggish offensive processing dragged his overall score into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 32.0m -17.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 31.0m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Relentless point-of-attack harassment (+5.8 Def) set a physical tone that disrupted the opponent's offensive timing. He created sheer chaos by diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs, generating crucial extra possessions. A tendency to gamble for steals occasionally compromised the backline, keeping his overall impact modest despite the high energy.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 31.0m -17.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
14
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.8

Dominated the dirty work by setting bone-crushing screens that consistently liberated the team's primary ball-handlers. His positional discipline on defense walled off the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. A relentless pattern of early box-outs neutralized the opposing frontcourt's offensive rebounding threat.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 30.9m -17.2
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

Consistently targeted in mismatch hunting, he struggled to contain quicker wings on the perimeter. His offensive spacing was negated by a hesitation to let it fly against closeouts, which allowed the defense to recover and reset. A distinct pattern of getting caught ball-watching led to several back-door cuts that heavily penalized his rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 27.7m -15.4
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Goga Bitadze 17.1m
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.0

Provided a sturdy interior presence but was frequently exploited in space when dragged into pick-and-roll actions. He executed his drop coverage assignments adequately, yet failed to generate the vertical spacing needed to threaten the rim offensively. This push-and-pull between interior bulk and perimeter vulnerability resulted in a perfectly flat net influence.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 17.1m -9.4
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Tyus Jones 17.0m
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

Played an overly passive brand of basketball, frequently passing up open driving lanes and stalling the offensive flow. Opposing guards easily navigated his screens, putting constant pressure on the backline defense. His reluctance to probe the paint allowed the defense to stay glued to shooters, resulting in a stagnant and negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 17.0m -9.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Operated exclusively as a defensive specialist, utilizing his massive wingspan to shrink passing windows and deter drives. His complete lack of offensive involvement allowed his defender to roam freely as a free safety, gumming up the team's spacing. A crucial sequence of weak-side blocks highlighted his defensive value, but the offensive zero-sum dragged him slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 12.2m -6.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Davion Mitchell 37.2m
11
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-6.6

Despite orchestrating the offense well, his impact plummeted due to defensive breakdowns when navigating high ball screens. He was consistently flattened by physical picks, forcing bigs to over-help and surrender easy dump-offs. The playmaking volume couldn't salvage a night where his point-of-attack defense was heavily compromised.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 37.2m -20.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bam Adebayo 35.5m
19
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

Anchored the interior with elite rim deterrence (+10.9 Def) that completely shut off the opponent's driving lanes. His ability to switch onto smaller guards during the second half short-circuited multiple pick-and-roll possessions. While he settled for a few empty perimeter looks, his relentless screen-setting and physical box-outs drove a massive positive margin.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +10.9
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 35.5m -19.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 35.4m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Efficient scoring masked a relatively quiet night in terms of off-ball impact and rotational defense. He capitalized on favorable isolation matchups on the wing, but a lack of secondary playmaking and minimal rebounding presence limited his ceiling. His tendency to float on the weak side defensively kept his overall net influence barely above neutral.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 35.4m -19.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tyler Herro 34.5m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Perimeter shot selection dragged down his overall effectiveness, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock. Opposing guards targeted him in isolation, forcing defensive rotations that compromised the team's shell. A glaring pattern of empty possessions from beyond the arc ultimately outweighed his secondary creation.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 34.5m -19.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 34.0m
21
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

High defensive engagement (+7.0) and constant off-ball movement kept his overall impact in the green despite a perimeter-heavy shot diet. His willingness to contest aggressively on the wing set the tone, offsetting the damage from several forced, late-clock jumpers. A steady pattern of creating deflections fueled transition opportunities that stabilized his overall value.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 34.0m -19.0
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Struggled to find a rhythm against length, frequently driving into traffic and coughing up live-ball turnovers. His defensive rotations were a step slow, leading to a negligible impact on that end of the floor (+0.1). A distinct pattern of over-dribbling in the mid-post stalled the offense and allowed the defense to reset.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 24.4m -13.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 12.4m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Maximized a brief rotation stint by dominating the offensive glass and creating crucial second-chance opportunities. His vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter even when he wasn't touching the ball. A key stretch of rim-runs in the second quarter perfectly illustrated his high-energy, low-usage value.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -57.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 12.4m -7.0
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Limited court time resulted in a muted offensive footprint, though he remained disciplined in his defensive assignments. He effectively shadowed shooters off screens, preventing clean catch-and-shoot opportunities during his brief stint. However, a complete lack of offensive aggression kept him from moving the needle positively.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -46.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 10.5m -5.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 8.1m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Completely disrupted the opponent's second unit with suffocating on-ball pressure and elite gap discipline. He blew up multiple dribble hand-offs during a pivotal third-quarter stretch, generating transition chances through sheer hustle. This hyper-efficient defensive cameo perfectly demonstrated how to impact winning without requiring offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 8.1m -4.4
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

A disastrous shooting stint completely cratered his value, as he bricked multiple wide-open looks that derailed offensive momentum. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, packing the paint and stifling the team's primary actions. His inability to punish heavy help defense defined a highly detrimental shift.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -43.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total -4.0
Avg player in 7.9m -4.4
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1