GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Derik Queen 34.7m
17
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.2

Operating with newfound patience in the post, he carved up the interior defense with highly efficient finishing. His ability to read double-teams and keep the ball moving prevented the offense from stagnating during crucial stretches. This decisive interior presence was a massive upgrade over his recent struggles with forced shots.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 34.7m -22.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Trey Murphy III 31.1m
24
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.9

Masterful shot selection and ruthless efficiency inside the arc drove a dominant two-way performance. He completely suffocated his primary matchup, generating elite defensive metrics that fueled transition opportunities. This was a clinic in playing within the flow of the offense while dictating the physical terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +8.7
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 31.1m -20.1
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 29.4m
15
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

A heavy diet of contested midrange jumpers dragged down his efficiency and suppressed his overall impact score. While he managed to secure extra possessions through sheer physical effort on the glass, the wasted offensive trips neutralized that value. He ultimately broke even, serving as a volume innings-eater rather than a true difference-maker.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 29.4m -19.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 25.1m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless rim pressure and superb body control allowed him to score efficiently without relying on the three-point shot. He paired this offensive assertiveness with active hands in the passing lanes, generating deflections that sparked fast breaks. His steady two-way execution provided a stabilizing force for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 25.1m -16.3
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Herbert Jones 14.4m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Uncharacteristic struggles at the point of attack left the defense vulnerable during his brief stint on the floor. Compounding the defensive lapses, he forced several contested drives into traffic that resulted in empty possessions. The combination of bricked floaters and missed rotations resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 14.4m -9.3
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
23
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.2

Flawless perimeter execution and lethal spot-up shooting punished the defense every time they lost track of him. Beyond the perfect marksmanship, he was an absolute terror in pursuit of loose balls, generating massive hustle metrics. This was a textbook example of a role player catching fire and executing his assignments to perfection.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 5/5 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.8%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +6.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 29.9m -19.2
Impact +17.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Poole 25.8m
22
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

A barrage of ill-advised perimeter attempts threatened to derail the offense, but his sheer volume eventually broke through the defensive shell. He compensated for the erratic shot selection by pushing the pace relentlessly and creating chaos in transition. Breaking out of a severe slump required a green light, and he shot his way back into a positive rhythm despite the collateral damage.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 25.8m -16.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-7.1

Offensive ineptitude completely overshadowed his trademark peskiness on the defensive end. Missing all of his perimeter looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. The resulting spacing issues and stalled possessions dragged his net impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 22.9m -14.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Yves Missi 13.3m
5
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.0

Total domination as a rim protector completely altered the geometry of the court during his short shift. Opposing guards outright refused to challenge him in the paint, leading to late-clock bailouts and forced jumpers. He maximized every second of his playing time by anchoring a flawless defensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 13.3m -8.7
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Micah Peavy 10.5m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Capitalized on a brief opportunity by taking only high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense. He maintained structural integrity on defense without gambling, ensuring the bench unit didn't bleed points. A quiet but highly effective stint that kept the team's momentum intact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +65.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 10.5m -6.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Fired away immediately upon entering the game, functioning strictly as a quick-trigger floor spacer in a fleeting appearance. The ultra-short stint didn't allow for any defensive rhythm to develop. He served his purpose as a situational shooting threat before heading back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 1.4m -0.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Crammed an absurd amount of defensive activity into a microscopic window of playing time. A quick rotation to contest a shot and immediate rim-running generated a massive spike in his impact metrics. He proved highly disruptive in a highly specialized, blink-and-you-miss-it deployment.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 1.4m -1.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 31.9m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.3

A sharp drop in shot-making efficiency severely hampered his offensive rating, as he settled for contested jumpers instead of attacking the paint. While his defensive rotations and closeouts remained highly effective, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions dragged his net score into the red. His inability to replicate his recent scoring rhythm stalled the secondary unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 31.9m -20.5
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 30.8m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.8

Severe inefficiency from the perimeter cratered his overall impact, as he forced contested looks throughout the night and broke from his recent steady rhythm. The massive disparity between his baseline box stats and his negative total score points to costly live-ball turnovers and poor transition defense. He ultimately surrendered more value on the other end than he generated as a primary scorer.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 30.8m -20.0
Impact -13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kris Murray 28.6m
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Elite defensive positioning and relentless effort on loose balls defined his time on the floor. Despite those high-level hustle plays, his inability to stretch the floor or convert open perimeter looks bogged down the half-court offense. Opponents completely ignoring him on the arc ultimately negated his stellar defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.4
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 28.6m -18.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 27.8m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

Active hands and constant off-ball movement generated strong hustle metrics that kept his baseline value afloat. However, his overall impact was nearly zeroed out, suggesting he likely surrendered crucial driving lanes or committed poorly timed fouls on the defensive end. His steady perimeter stroke remains a reliable weapon, but the hidden mistakes limited his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 27.8m -18.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 27.2m
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.4

Blistering perimeter shot-making masked a disastrous defensive performance that bled points on the other end. Frequent missed assignments and late closeouts allowed opposing guards to feast, completely erasing his offensive output. The scoring volume looks impressive, but the hidden costs of poor floor mapping sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense -1.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 27.2m -17.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 82.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 32.0m
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

An unexpected offensive explosion completely shifted the dynamic of the game, as he capitalized on defensive neglect to score at will. Crisp finishing at the rim and surprisingly confident perimeter strokes fueled a massive spike in his baseline metrics. This sudden surge in aggression forced the defense to adjust, opening up passing lanes that hadn't existed in recent weeks.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 32.0m -20.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 23.7m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Finding a sudden rhythm as a slasher allowed him to break out of a recent slump and generate high-quality looks at the basket. His length disrupted several passing lanes, contributing to a solid defensive rating that kept his head above water. Despite the offensive resurgence, minor rotational lapses kept his overall net impact from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 23.7m -15.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Love 21.7m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.9

Forcing the issue from beyond the arc proved costly, as empty trips from deep allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. While he showed improved aggression compared to recent outings, the shot selection leaned heavily toward heavily contested pull-ups. Those wasted possessions ultimately overshadowed a relatively stable defensive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 21.7m -14.0
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Duop Reath 12.5m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Clunky offensive execution and a failure to connect on pick-and-pop opportunities rendered him a liability on one end of the floor. He managed to salvage some value through sturdy interior defense and timely rim contests. However, the inability to punish drop coverage severely cramped the team's spacing during his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 12.5m -8.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

A brief and disjointed cameo yielded negative returns due to a lack of offensive involvement and a rushed field goal attempt. He provided a modicum of energy on the defensive end, but couldn't find the flow of the game. The short leash prevented him from establishing any meaningful rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 3.7m -2.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1