GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Severe perimeter inefficiency sabotaged his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The defense keyed in on his drives, baiting him into a disastrous shooting performance from beyond the arc that killed offensive momentum. Surprisingly, his defensive engagement remained high, preventing his net score from plummeting further.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.4
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 35.0m -19.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 32.7m
16
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

A high-volume rebounding effort and aggressive offensive output were undercut by defensive lapses that kept his overall impact slightly negative. He broke out of a recent scoring slump by aggressively attacking the basket, though his shot selection occasionally veered into forced territory. Despite the solid individual counting stats, his minutes coincided with detrimental opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 32.7m -18.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Evan Mobley 31.1m
16
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.2

A strong two-way effort was dragged down to a neutral impact by the team's struggles during his minutes on the floor. He anchored the paint effectively and scored efficiently on the interior, but couldn't stretch the defense from beyond the arc. His defensive versatility kept the game competitive, even if the overall lineup combinations failed to gain traction.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 31.1m -17.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 28.6m
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.9

Elite rim protection and paint deterrence drove a highly positive impact, completely shutting down the opponent's interior attack. He controlled the restricted area with verticality rather than fouling, serving as the ultimate defensive safety valve. Offensively, he maintained his recent streak of efficiency by strictly adhering to a diet of high-percentage rim runs and putbacks.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +10.3
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 28.6m -16.0
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Dean Wade 16.5m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his impact score, as he failed to apply any pressure on the opposing defense. His reluctance to look for his own shot allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team primary ball-handlers. While he provided some value through hustle plays, his lack of spacing gravity severely bogged down the half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -50.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 16.5m -9.2
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Provided a massive defensive spark with his length and switchability, completely neutralizing his primary matchups. His offensive role was limited but effective, taking advantage of defensive breakdowns to score around the basket. The neutral overall impact reflects a gritty, role-playing performance that stabilized the rotation without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 26.4m -14.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

A brutal shooting night completely erased the value of his solid wing defense. He settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups and failed to punish closeouts, acting as an offensive black hole for long stretches. His ability to navigate screens defensively was the only thing keeping him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 25.5m -14.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

Despite a massive scoring surge relative to his recent averages, his overall impact suffered due to poor offensive flow during his minutes. He struggled to organize the half-court offense, often driving into traffic without a clear exit strategy. His on-ball defense was solid, but his inability to consistently generate high-quality looks for others stalled out the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 21.5m -11.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.4

A complete inability to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack led to a disastrous negative impact score. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage, forcing the entire defense into rotation. His passive offensive approach did nothing to offset the damage he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense -2.8
Raw total -5.1
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Lonzo Ball 5.3m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Rusted offensive timing was evident during a brief stint, as he struggled to find his rhythm from the perimeter. He forced a couple of contested looks rather than keeping the ball moving, stalling out offensive possessions. The limited sample size didn't allow him to settle into his usual role as a connective playmaker.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 5.3m -3.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely registered an impact during a fleeting rotational appearance. He operated strictly as a placeholder, setting a few screens without ever demanding the ball or altering the defensive geometry. His minutes were too brief to establish any meaningful rhythm or flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.6m -1.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
30
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.1

Relentless rim pressure and elite isolation scoring generated a massive box impact. He consistently broke down primary defenders off the dribble, collapsing the paint and finishing through contact. Even with a quiet night from beyond the arc, his ability to dictate the game's tempo kept the offense humming at an elite level.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +25.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 33.7m -18.8
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 33.5m
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.3

A massive offensive breakout was the primary engine behind his strong positive impact, shaking off a recent shooting slump with lethal perimeter accuracy. He punished the defense for sagging off him, converting nearly every catch-and-shoot opportunity he was given. This floor-stretching gravity perfectly complemented his standard physical point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 114.2%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 33.5m -18.8
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 31.4m
28
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.3

Absolute dominance across all impact metrics was fueled by a masterclass in offensive efficiency and floor spacing. He completely warped the opponent's defensive shell by stepping out to hit perimeter daggers while still protecting the rim at a high level. This ability to dictate the terms of engagement on both ends generated a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +50.5
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +7.8
Defense +7.6
Raw total +38.9
Avg player in 31.4m -17.6
Impact +21.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Aaron Wiggins 30.6m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.5

Defensive disruption drove his highly positive impact, anchoring the perimeter while consistently making the extra effort on 50/50 balls. He maintained his recent streak of hyper-efficient shot selection by punishing late rotations rather than forcing looks. His steady two-way play provided a stabilizing presence throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +12.8
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 30.6m -17.1
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.1

Maximized a brief rotational stint by capitalizing on open pick-and-pop opportunities from the perimeter. His perfect execution from deep provided an immediate spacing boost for the second unit. Active hustle ensured his short floor time yielded a highly positive net return.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +49.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 7.5m -4.2
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-11.2

High-level playmaking wasn't enough to rescue a heavily negative overall impact, largely due to an inability to establish his own scoring gravity. Defenders sagged off him to clog passing lanes, stalling out the half-court offense despite his impressive distribution. He struggled to pressure the rim, allowing the opposing defense to dictate the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 25.4m -14.2
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Isaiah Joe 24.6m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Elite floor-spacing and constant off-ball motion allowed him to shatter the opponent's defensive schemes. His quick trigger from deep severely punished late closeouts, driving a highly efficient offensive stint. Strong hustle metrics indicate he was just as active fighting through screens and chasing loose balls as he was hunting shots.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 24.6m -13.7
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Gritty defensive rotations and strong hustle plays were overshadowed by poor shot selection and offensive inefficiency. He repeatedly settled for contested perimeter looks that bailed out the defense and killed offensive momentum. His energy on the glass and in the passing lanes prevented a worse net rating, but the offensive struggles were too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 20.5m -11.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

Passive offensive involvement and a failure to generate advantages off the bounce led to a steep negative impact score. He struggled to leave a footprint on the game, floating on the perimeter rather than attacking gaps. A rare negative defensive rating suggests he was frequently targeted or caught out of position on switches.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 18.0m -10.1
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

An uncharacteristically cold shooting night completely neutralized his offensive value during a short stint. Despite the bricked open looks, he managed to salvage his overall impact through trademark defensive intensity and disruptive hands. His ability to blow up actions at the point of attack kept his net score from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 8.5%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 7.4m -4.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Capitalized on a very brief rotational window by aggressively hunting his shot and converting efficiently. He showed no hesitation attacking closeouts, providing a quick injection of offense. His length and activity level yielded positive returns across the board despite the limited sample size.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 4.7m -2.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Delivered maximum value in garbage time by immediately stepping into and drilling consecutive perimeter looks. His flawless execution as a spot-up threat instantly juiced his box impact. He played within himself, taking exactly what the defense conceded during his brief floor time.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +150.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 2.6m -1.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0