GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 35.6m
22
pts
19
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.9

Utterly dominated the paint by altering shots at the rim and securing contested defensive rebounds to terminate opponent possessions. His interior gravity opened up the floor, while his disciplined closeouts ensured he anchored the defense without accumulating cheap fouls.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +8.7
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 35.6m -22.0
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
31
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.9

Sliced through the primary line of defense at will, creating high-value looks at the rim and collapsing the opposing scheme. His sheer shot-making efficiency completely overwhelmed his matchup, driving a massive positive impact that dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 34.7m -18.6
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S James Harden 33.9m
21
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

A disastrous shooting night characterized by forced isolation jumpers against set defenses severely hampered his overall value. While his defensive reads and passing vision remained sharp, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions ultimately dragged his team down.

Shooting
FG 6/23 (26.1%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 33.9m -19.2
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 29.1m
16
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.4

Anchored the drop coverage effectively, forcing ball-handlers into tough floaters and contested mid-range looks. Though his finishing around the basket was slightly below his usual standard, his vertical deterrence and screen-setting maintained a solid positive baseline.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +11.2
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 29.1m -14.8
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dean Wade 21.2m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Flawless execution as a weak-side connector and spot-up threat drove a highly efficient two-way performance. His ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions on defense while punishing closeouts offensively made him an essential glue guy in this rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 21.2m -11.7
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Sam Merrill 27.2m
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.7

Extreme passivity on the offensive end allowed defenders to ignore him and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Combined with his struggles to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, his inability to leverage his shooting gravity resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 27.2m -15.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 22.3m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Over-helping on defense led to late closeouts and easy catch-and-shoot opportunities for his assignment. His offensive hesitancy further compounded the issue, as he passed up open looks and allowed the defense to reset.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 22.3m -12.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Max Strus 21.2m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Struggled to find the range on movement threes, which disrupted the team's offensive flow and spacing. Without his typical floor-stretching threat, the half-court offense stagnated during his shifts, leading to a noticeable drop in overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 21.2m -12.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.6

Pounded the air out of the ball during stagnant second-unit possessions, leading to late-clock grenades and disjointed offense. His failure to organize the half-court sets or contain dribble penetration at the point of attack resulted in a heavily negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -68.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.8
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 14.7m -9.2
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
ATL Atlanta Hawks
25
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Scoring volume and active perimeter defense were completely overshadowed by disastrous decision-making with the ball in his hands. A high volume of unforced errors and offensive fouls negated his hot shooting, turning what looked like a breakout offensive night into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 39.2m -21.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Johnson 34.0m
12
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.9

Forcing looks against set defenses resulted in a brutal shooting slump that cratered his overall value. His inability to find rhythm from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off, stalling the half-court offense and compounding the damage of his missed attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 34.0m -22.1
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 33.0m
12
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.3

Solid perimeter containment and active hands generated positive defensive value, but careless ball security completely erased those gains. A string of live-ball turnovers in transition ultimately dragged his net impact into the red despite an otherwise balanced two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 33.0m -20.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 32.9m
18
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Elite rim-running and decisive finishing through contact fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He consistently exploited defensive rotations in the pick-and-roll, maximizing his touches without forcing bad shots to anchor a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 32.9m -19.5
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 32.1m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.8

Surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense kept him engaged, but a heavy diet of contested mid-range pull-ups doomed his efficiency. Settling for low-quality looks early in the shot clock neutralized the value he provided through active hands and off-ball hustle.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 32.1m -19.7
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
24
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Aggressive downhill drives allowed him to exploit mismatches and generate massive box-score production. However, a lack of secondary hustle plays and occasional defensive lapses kept his overall impact surprisingly muted relative to his scoring explosion.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 30.5m -16.3
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Made his mark entirely through high-energy rotational defense and relentless activity on the glass. By strictly playing within his role and contesting shots at the rim, he generated positive value despite minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +67.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 16.4m -12.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 14.6m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Perfect shot selection during a crucial second-quarter stretch provided a massive, unexpected offensive spark. He capitalized entirely on catch-and-shoot opportunities created by drive-and-kicks, maximizing his brief floor time without giving anything back in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 115.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 14.6m -8.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Failed to leave any offensive footprint during his brief stint, functioning merely as a spacer who never drew gravity. While he executed defensive assignments adequately, the complete lack of offensive aggression rendered his minutes a slight negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 7.3m -4.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0