GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 34.3m
28
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.1

Dictated the tempo flawlessly, using his gravity on the perimeter to open up driving lanes while generating elite defensive metrics (+8.2) through perfectly timed digs and deflections. An exceptionally high hustle rating (+5.1) highlighted his engagement in loose-ball scrums that swung multiple extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +8.2
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 34.3m -17.2
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Keon Ellis 33.3m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Active hands in passing lanes and disciplined closeouts generated a strong defensive rating, keeping his overall impact above water. While his spot-up shooting was reliable, occasional rotational breakdowns prevented his solid box metrics from translating into a higher net score.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 33.3m -16.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
38
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.0

Masterful navigation of the pick-and-roll allowed him to dissect the drop coverage with a barrage of mid-range pull-ups and floaters. This elite shot creation drove a massive +26.3 box impact, completely overwhelming the primary point-of-attack defenders.

Shooting
FG 16/27 (59.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 42.7%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +26.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 32.9m -16.3
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Max Strus 30.9m
4
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-17.0

An abysmal perimeter shooting display severely handicapped the offense and allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. The sheer volume of bricked three-pointers fueled opponent run-outs, resulting in a staggering -17.0 net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 30.9m -15.4
Impact -17.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Thomas Bryant 26.2m
14
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Punished mismatches in the post and sealed off defenders early to create high-percentage looks. His physical screen-setting and relentless activity on the offensive glass (+3.0 hustle) wore down the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 26.2m -13.0
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite showing flashes of competent on-ball defense (+3.0), his overall presence bogged down the offensive flow. A lack of playmaking aggression allowed the defense to sag off him, stalling half-court sets during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 22.6m -11.3
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Elite weak-side rim protection and switchability defined his stint, resulting in a dominant +8.7 defensive impact. Even with a quiet scoring night, his constant communication and high-motor closeouts (+3.8 hustle) stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 21.8m -11.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently getting caught on screens which compromised the shell defense. Offensively, a lack of burst prevented him from collapsing the paint, leading to stagnant possessions and a negative net score.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 20.0m -9.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Showed decent energy in transition (+2.3 hustle) but was largely invisible in half-court sets. Poor spatial awareness on the defensive end allowed back-door cuts that ultimately dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 13.2m -6.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A brief, ineffective cameo snapped his recent string of efficient shooting performances. Failed to make any meaningful rotations or offensive reads before being quickly pulled from the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.8m -2.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Kobe Brown 39.8m
11
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.2

Box score metrics suggest a positive contribution, but poor interior finishing dragged his actual net impact firmly into the red. His inability to convert in traffic halted a four-game efficiency streak and frequently left the transition defense vulnerable.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 39.8m -19.9
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Slawson 32.7m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Lethal floor-spacing completely transformed the offensive geometry, punishing late closeouts to shatter his recent scoring slump. His two-way value was further amplified by crisp weak-side rotations that anchored a +5.7 defensive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 86.4%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.7
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 32.7m -16.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Micah Potter 30.4m
21
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.3

Dominated the interior matchups while stretching the floor effectively to post a massive +19.5 box impact. Relentless work on the glass and high-motor rim runs (+4.0 hustle) consistently generated second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's defensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 30.4m -15.2
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ethan Thompson 29.6m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-19.1

A disastrous shooting night cratered his offensive value, as forced perimeter looks led to long rebounds and easy transition chances the other way. Failing to contain his primary assignment compounded the damage, resulting in a team-worst -19.1 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 29.6m -14.7
Impact -19.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quenton Jackson 28.9m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite a strong defensive rating (+5.8) driven by active perimeter containment, his overall impact slipped into the negative. A sharp decline in shot selection snapped his four-game streak of highly efficient shooting, resulting in empty possessions that stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 28.9m -14.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Obi Toppin 23.5m
21
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.5

Aggressive rim attacks forced the defense into constant rotation, drawing fouls that heavily inflated his scoring efficiency despite mediocre field goal numbers. Solid positional awareness (+3.9 defense) ensured his offensive bursts translated directly to a double-digit net positive.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 23.5m -11.7
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 19.1m
2
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.9

Completely neutralized by aggressive ball pressure, leading to stagnant possessions and a steep drop-off from his recent efficient outings. Zero hustle plays and poor shot selection allowed the opposition to build momentum during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 19.1m -9.5
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Taelon Peter 18.4m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Provided a reliable catch-and-shoot threat during his rotation minutes to boost the offensive spacing. However, defensive lapses against quicker guards bled points and ultimately washed away his efficient scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -33.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 18.4m -9.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jay Huff 17.6m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Anchored the paint well enough to register a solid +3.0 defensive impact, altering several attempts at the rim. Unfortunately, a lack of offensive assertiveness and failure to establish deep post position limited his overall influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 17.6m -8.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1