GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 37.5m
18
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.7

A heavy volume of contested mid-range jumpers severely dragged down his offensive efficiency and overall net rating. Furthermore, his inability to stay in front of quick guards at the point of attack led to a negative defensive score that compounded the team's struggles. The scoring output was largely empty calories that failed to translate into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.0
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 37.5m -22.1
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Anthony Black 36.5m
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.9

Wasted offensive possessions and poor perimeter efficiency torpedoed his net impact, making him a massive offensive liability. While his point-of-attack defense and ball pressure were genuinely disruptive, his inability to capitalize on open spot-up looks allowed the opposition to completely ignore him in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 36.5m -21.6
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Flawless shot selection and punishing screens fueled a highly positive two-way performance. He anchored the drop coverage beautifully to earn a stellar defensive score, consistently blowing up pick-and-roll actions while stretching the floor perfectly on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.8
Raw total +29.4
Avg player in 35.4m -20.9
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 72.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Paolo Banchero 35.3m
25
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

A disastrous performance from beyond the arc completely neutralized his otherwise solid interior scoring and defensive versatility. By missing every perimeter attempt, he allowed the defense to pack the paint, stalling the half-court offense and driving his total impact into the red. His strong weak-side rim rotations were not enough to salvage the offensive spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 35.3m -21.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jalen Suggs 29.5m
26
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.4

Aggressive downhill drives generated a massive scoring surge, but his overall impact was heavily muted by erratic perimeter chucking. He uncharacteristically struggled with screen navigation on defense, bleeding points to opposing guards and dragging his total net rating down to a marginal positive.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 29.5m -17.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jett Howard 14.6m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by knocking down open catch-and-shoot opportunities to keep the floor spaced. His slight positive impact was capped by defensive limitations, as he struggled to contain straight-line drives when isolated on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 14.6m -8.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 12.6m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Operated strictly as a defensive anchor and screen-setter, completely eschewing offensive touches to focus on dirty work. His sturdy post defense and rim deterrence kept his overall impact slightly above water despite offering zero scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 12.6m -7.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

A complete offensive blackout cratered his impact score as he forced heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, making his brief stint on the floor highly detrimental to the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -73.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 12.0m -7.1
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided a quick spark with timely cuts and decisive offensive reads during a brief rotation. However, his usually elite defensive presence was surprisingly absent, as he was caught out of position on several weak-side rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 9.5m -5.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 9.5m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Passive offensive initiation allowed the defense to dictate the tempo during his minutes running the second unit. A lack of aggressive rim pressure resulted in stagnant possessions, ultimately driving a negative net rating despite avoiding major mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 9.5m -5.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Instant offensive combustion defined this electric cameo, as he punished lazy closeouts with decisive perimeter shot-making. His ability to instantly stretch the floor against the second unit drove a highly efficient positive impact in under eight minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 7.6m -4.5
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 42.5m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

Despite finding success on mid-range pull-ups, his overall impact plummeted to a concerning -9.7 due to severe spacing issues and a lack of perimeter volume. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, resulting in an uncharacteristically low defensive score. The offense consistently stalled during his heavy minutes when he failed to pressure the defense from deep.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 42.5m -25.2
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 40.2m
24
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

A masterclass in two-way wing play fueled a dominant +10.4 defensive rating alongside highly efficient perimeter shot selection. Taking advantage of smaller matchups in the post, he punished closeouts while completely shutting down the opponent's primary actions on the other end. His two-way synergy drove a stellar overall positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +10.4
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 40.2m -23.7
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Brunson 38.6m
40
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.3

Relentless rim pressure and elite isolation footwork generated a massive +29.7 box impact score. He systematically dismantled the opposing backcourt with an array of floaters and foul-drawing drives, completely carrying the offensive load. While his point-of-attack defense remained vulnerable, his sheer scoring gravity dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 16/27 (59.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.6%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +29.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +36.2
Avg player in 38.6m -22.9
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
29
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.2

Near-perfect shot selection around the rim and excellent spacing created a staggering +29.4 box impact. He consistently abused drop coverage in the pick-and-pop, forcing the defense into impossible rotations. Solid rim deterrence further cemented a dominant overall showing.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +29.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +39.1
Avg player in 37.2m -21.9
Impact +17.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Josh Hart 31.3m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.3

Elite defensive rotations and constant motor on the glass generated a massive +7.8 defensive impact score. However, his total net rating was dragged down to a modest +1.3 by a complete inability to stretch the floor from the perimeter. Opponents sagging off him allowed them to clog the paint during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +6.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 31.3m -18.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite rim protection and vertical spacing anchored a highly positive +9.5 total impact score in limited action. He completely altered the geometry of the paint, deterring drives and creating second-chance opportunities through sheer physicality on the interior.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 17.4m -10.3
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 15.8m
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Occasional flashes of playmaking could not overcome a negative overall net rating driven by defensive mismatches. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, negating the value of his steady offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +52.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 15.8m -9.2
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Forced isolations and stagnant ball movement cratered his net impact during a disastrous second-quarter rotation. He bled value on the defensive end by dying on screens, allowing open perimeter looks that fueled an opponent run.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 12.9m -7.7
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A brief, ineffective stint resulted in a negative overall impact as he struggled to find the pace of the game. Defensive lapses in transition during his few minutes on the floor quickly forced him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 4.0m -2.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0