Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CLE lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
CLE 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barrett 8/15 +1.6
Ingram 7/15 -1.4
Barnes 6/14 -1.6
Quickley 2/9 -5.9
Battle Hard 7/7 +12.2
Murray-Boyles Open 2/5 -3.0
Shead 3/4 +2.8
Mamukelashvili Hard 2/4 +0.7
Walter Hard 1/4 +0.1
Agbaji Open 1/3 -1.9

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Hunter Hard 8/18 +2.6
Mobley 11/17 +4.0
Tyson 7/14 +2.1
Ball 3/7 +0.6
Proctor 2/7 -4.7
Wade 1/7 -5.3
Nance Jr. 0/6 -6.7
Porter Jr. 2/5 -0.1
Travers Open 0/5 -6.4
Bryant Open 2/4 -1.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
CLE
40/82 Field Goals 36/90
48.8% Field Goal % 40.0%
13/30 3-Pointers 14/46
43.3% 3-Point % 30.4%
19/24 Free Throws 15/23
79.2% Free Throw % 65.2%
60.5% True Shooting % 50.4%
56 Total Rebounds 53
10 Offensive 15
38 Defensive 27
27 Assists 24
1.50 Assist/TO Ratio 1.71
16 Turnovers 13
9 Steals 10
4 Blocks 10
18 Fouls 15
44 Points in Paint 40
12 Fast Break Pts 11
12 Points off TOs 17
18 Second Chance Pts 17
48 Bench Points 15
13 Largest Lead 10
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Evan Mobley
29 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 35.6 MIN
+28.27
2
Jamison Battle
20 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 15.1 MIN
+18.5
3
Brandon Ingram
20 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 35.1 MIN
+16.77
4
RJ Barrett
20 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 36.2 MIN
+15.43
5
Dean Wade
5 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 30.3 MIN
+12.05
6
De'Andre Hunter
26 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 33.9 MIN
+12.0
7
Jaylon Tyson
18 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 33.3 MIN
+11.82
8
Sandro Mamukelashvili
11 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 18.6 MIN
+10.87
9
Jamal Shead
9 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 21.3 MIN
+9.29
10
Lonzo Ball
8 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 25.9 MIN
+8.05
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:04 R. Barrett driving DUNK (20 PTS) 112–101
Q4 0:09 S. Barnes REBOUND (Off:2 Def:8) 110–101
Q4 0:12 MISS D. Hunter 26' pullup 3PT 110–101
Q4 0:26 J. Battle driving DUNK (20 PTS) (R. Barrett 2 AST) 110–101
Q4 0:28 D. Hunter 27' 3PT pullup (26 PTS) (E. Mobley 3 AST) 108–101
Q4 0:30 E. Mobley REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 108–98
Q4 0:33 MISS D. Hunter 25' turnaround 3PT 108–98
Q4 0:36 J. Battle 24' 3PT (18 PTS) (I. Quickley 6 AST) 108–98
Q4 0:57 S. Barnes REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 105–98
Q4 1:00 MISS L. Ball driving finger roll Layup 105–98
Q4 1:07 J. Battle 29' 3PT (15 PTS) (I. Quickley 5 AST) 105–98
Q4 1:22 E. Mobley DUNK (29 PTS) (D. Wade 4 AST) 102–98
Q4 1:40 B. Ingram Layup (20 PTS) 102–96
Q4 1:58 E. Mobley tip Layup (27 PTS) 100–96
Q4 1:58 E. Mobley REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 100–94

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 35.6m
29
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.5

Utter dominance in the paint on both ends of the floor resulted in a monstrous net positive rating. He completely deterred drivers at the rim, altering countless trajectories while simultaneously feasting on high-percentage looks via the pick-and-roll. A dominant third-quarter stretch of consecutive stops and scores effectively broke the opponent's will.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +23.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.5
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S De'Andre Hunter 33.9m
26
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.0

High-volume gunning from beyond the arc yielded diminishing returns, as a barrage of missed perimeter shots fueled long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. The scoring output was merely empty calories that masked significant defensive lapses on backdoor cuts. He consistently forced isolation plays against set defenses rather than moving the ball to the open man.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +18.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jaylon Tyson 33.3m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Careless passing in traffic resulted in costly live-ball turnovers that neutralized an otherwise sharp offensive showing. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently requiring help defenders to abandon their assignments and leave shooters open. The perimeter shot-making was impressive, but defensive miscommunications on switches kept his net impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -4.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Dean Wade 30.3m
5
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.6

Smothering point-of-attack defense completely erased his matchup and salvaged his overall impact despite a frigid shooting night. He made his money doing the dirty work, executing flawless weak-side rotations and diving for loose balls to extend possessions. The willingness to sacrifice his body on screens created immense value that the traditional box score missed.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +7.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
S Lonzo Ball 25.9m
8
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.6

Stagnant half-court orchestration and a reluctance to pressure the rim allowed the defense to comfortably stay at home on shooters. He was repeatedly targeted in the post by larger guards, forcing the defense into scramble mode to protect him. A string of unforced passing errors during transition opportunities stunted the team's momentum and tanked his score.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Over-dribbling at the top of the key routinely killed the shot clock, leading to forced, low-percentage bailouts. He struggled to fight through screens, consistently putting the primary rim protector in two-on-one disadvantages. The lack of off-ball movement made him a non-factor when he wasn't initiating the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.6

A complete inability to convert around the basket or stretch the floor severely handicapped the offensive spacing. Opposing bigs completely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to pack the paint and stifle driving lanes for his teammates. Sluggish closeouts and poor rebounding positioning further compounded a disastrous shift.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring -4.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Travers 14.5m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Forcing contested shots at the rim against set defenses resulted in empty possessions and a steep negative impact. He looked hesitant when the ball swung his way, allowing defenders to recover and neutralize any advantage created by the guards. A lack of spatial awareness on the offensive end frequently clogged the driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Settling for long, contested two-pointers early in the shot clock dragged down his offensive efficiency and hurt the team's flow. He was easily bumped off his driving lines by physical defenders, preventing him from collapsing the defense. While his effort fighting over screens was commendable, the poor shot selection outweighed the defensive hustle.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

High-energy rim runs and relentless offensive rebounding created vital second-chance opportunities during a stagnant offensive stretch. He established deep post position early in the clock, forcing the defense to collapse and commit fouls. His physical presence in the paint successfully deterred several drives during his brief but highly effective rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S RJ Barrett 36.2m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.7

Decisive downhill drives and excellent shot selection from the perimeter drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He consistently punished closeouts, making quick reads that kept the offensive flow intact without stalling the ball. A disciplined effort navigating through off-ball screens highlighted his defensive contribution and kept his matchup quiet.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 35.1m
20
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.0

Midrange isolation efficiency anchored his positive net rating, overcoming a completely dry night from beyond the arc. His defensive rotations were surprisingly sharp, generating deflections that fueled transition opportunities. Kept the offense afloat during stagnant half-court possessions when the primary actions broke down.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 34.6m
14
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.6

Careless ball security severely dragged down his overall impact, with multiple live-ball turnovers leading directly to opponent fast breaks. While his weak-side rim protection and hustle metrics remained strong, forced offensive possessions negated his defensive value. He repeatedly settled for heavily contested floaters rather than using his frame to attack the basket.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +10.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.9

Brick after brick from the perimeter completely stalled the second-unit offense and cratered his impact score. He failed to generate separation against primary defenders, leading to late-clock, heavily contested bail-out attempts that fed opponent transitions. Despite digging in defensively at the point of attack, his offensive inefficiency was simply too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Frequent missed assignments on pick-and-roll coverages tanked his defensive rating during his second-half stint. A lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the defense to ignore him, shrinking the floor for the primary creators. He struggled to establish deep post position against stronger frontcourt matchups, rendering him a non-factor in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -42.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 21.3m
9
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.6

Opportunistic cutting and flawless shot selection maximized his offensive footprint without requiring high usage. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns, sneaking along the baseline for easy finishes that kept the momentum rolling. Pushing the pace off defensive rebounds consistently caught the opposition cross-matched in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Drawing multiple shooting fouls inside the paint hyper-charged his scoring efficiency and overall net impact. He proved to be a mismatch nightmare in the pick-and-pop, forcing opposing bigs into uncomfortable closeouts that compromised their defensive shell. Excellent verticality at the rim anchored a surprisingly stout defensive stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Ochai Agbaji 16.8m
3
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

Operating strictly as a low-usage connector, his value came entirely from disciplined perimeter defense and timely closeouts. He rarely forced the issue offensively, taking only what the defense conceded to keep the ball moving. A critical stretch of denying the ball to the opponent's primary wing scorer defined his brief but stable shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +50.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.2

An absolute flamethrower performance off the bench completely broke the opponent's zone coverage and skyrocketed his net impact. Every time the defense sagged, he punished them with flawless perimeter execution that single-handedly swung the momentum. His immense gravity as a shooter opened up gaping driving lanes for the entire second unit.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 6/6 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 142.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +74.8
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +20.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Rushed perimeter attempts early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive rhythm and dragged his rating into the red. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, frequently dying on picks and giving up straight-line dribble penetration. A lack of situational awareness during a late-quarter possession highlighted his struggles to adapt to the game's pace.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Barely on the floor long enough to leave a footprint, his impact hovered near neutral during a disjointed rotational stint. He was targeted on defense via switches, forcing early rotations that compromised the interior help. Offensively, he operated strictly as a floor spacer without seeing the ball swing his way.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0