GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 34.8m
22
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.2

Absolute dominance as a weak-side helper and rim deterrent anchored an elite defensive rating. Offensively, he leveraged his length to finish over smaller defenders in the pick-and-roll, maintaining his streak of highly efficient outings. His ability to switch onto guards late in the clock completely suffocated the opposing offense.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +11.3
Raw total +33.7
Avg player in 34.8m -19.5
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
32
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

Explosive isolation scoring was heavily offset by defensive lapses and likely ball-security issues that flattened his net impact. He carried the offensive load by hitting tough, contested pull-ups against set defenses. However, his tendency to gamble in passing lanes compromised the team's defensive shell, leaving his overall contribution nearly neutral.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 34.2m -19.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S De'Andre Hunter 28.3m
20
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.4

Physical wing defense and relentless transition hustle drove a massive two-way impact. He consistently fought over screens to smother perimeter scorers while effectively spacing the floor on the other end. Even with some streaky outside shooting, his aggressive downhill drives punished closing defenders.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 28.3m -15.7
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 26.9m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Exceptional shot selection and decisive off-ball cutting fueled a highly efficient breakout performance. He capitalized on defensive lapses by finding soft spots in the zone, converting nearly every look he took. This opportunistic scoring punch provided a crucial secondary offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 26.9m -15.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Darius Garland 26.6m
20
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.5

Struggles to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack dragged his overall impact into the red. While he knocked down his perimeter looks efficiently, he frequently over-dribbled into traffic, stalling the offensive flow. The defensive bleed ultimately outweighed his playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 26.6m -14.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Lonzo Ball 25.3m
0
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.7

A complete lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to completely ignore him, crippling the team's half-court spacing. He passed up multiple open looks, which bogged down the offense and led to late-clock heaves by teammates. Despite solid positional defense and active rebounding, his offensive passivity was a glaring detriment.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 25.3m -14.2
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Dean Wade 20.1m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Hesitancy to let it fly from deep undermined his value as a floor spacer, shrinking the court for the primary creators. He provided solid weak-side help and contested well at the rim, but his offensive invisibility hurt the unit's rhythm. The lack of volume ultimately resulted in a negative net rating despite decent defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 20.1m -11.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Veteran positioning and disciplined verticality at the rim stabilized the second-unit defense. He executed dribble hand-offs flawlessly, keeping the offense moving without forcing his own offense. A quintessential glue-guy performance that quietly kept the team afloat during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 19.2m -10.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Rushed decisions and poor touch around the basket severely hampered his offensive effectiveness. He looked lost against the opponent's switching scheme, often clogging driving lanes for his teammates. A lack of physical presence on the interior compounded a highly negative shift.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 11.6m -6.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Tenacious on-ball pressure against opposing guards generated a positive defensive footprint in limited action. He navigated screens well and disrupted timing on dribble hand-offs. Offensively, he played within himself, making safe reads to ensure a slightly positive overall stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 10.6m -5.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Caught flat-footed in drop coverage, he immediately surrendered a clean look at the rim during his brief appearance. He forced an ill-advised jumper on the other end, wasting a possession. A disastrous minute of action that quickly forced a substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

A rushed perimeter attempt early in the shot clock defined a disjointed garbage-time cameo. He failed to organize the offense effectively, leading to a stagnant possession. His defensive effort was adequate but couldn't erase the poor offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
21
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

High-volume scoring masked underlying inefficiencies, as forced perimeter shots dragged down his net impact. He repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock rather than driving to the basket. While he generated raw production, the empty possessions ultimately resulted in a negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 37.3m -20.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Pascal Siakam 36.9m
26
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.1

Efficient mismatch hunting in the mid-post drove a highly positive offensive rating. He consistently punished switches, creating high-percentage looks that anchored the half-court offense. Solid positional defense and active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.4
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 36.9m -20.6
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andrew Nembhard 32.9m
32
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+18.0

Aggressively attacking drop coverage and punishing defenders who went under screens allowed him to double his usual offensive production. This elite shot creation was paired with relentless point-of-attack defense to completely dismantle the opponent. Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll drove a massive positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +29.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +36.5
Avg player in 32.9m -18.5
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ben Sheppard 25.4m
2
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

Severe shooting struggles from the perimeter dragged his overall impact into the negative despite highly disruptive defensive rotations. Brick after brick from deep stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to sag into the paint. His strong closeouts and hustle plays simply couldn't overcome the offensive void he created.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 25.4m -14.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Isaiah Jackson 18.0m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Snapping a streak of highly efficient finishing, his inability to convert around the rim cratered his offensive value. He was effectively neutralized by physical interior defense, forcing awkward attempts in traffic. However, his rim protection and weak-side rotations kept his defensive metrics afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 18.0m -10.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jay Huff 26.0m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Elite rim protection and active hustle were entirely undone by a disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc. He stubbornly continued to launch contested threes despite being visibly out of rhythm, wasting crucial possessions. The defensive deterrence he provided in the paint couldn't offset the offensive black hole he created on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 26.0m -14.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Surgical precision in the mid-range and timely perimeter shooting sustained his streak of hyper-efficient performances. He relentlessly probed the baseline, keeping his dribble alive until the defense collapsed to create high-quality looks. Pesky on-ball pressure disrupted the opponent's initiation, securing a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 17.3m -9.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

A sharp regression in finishing efficiency severely limited his effectiveness after a string of highly productive outings. He appeared hesitant when attacking closeouts, leading to clunky attempts and stalled possessions. Without his usual offensive rhythm, his minimal defensive contributions weren't enough to salvage his rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 17.1m -9.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Completely invisible on the offensive end, his failure to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint. He was consistently a step slow on closeouts, yielding open driving lanes that compounded his negative impact. A lack of physicality on the glass further emphasized a highly detrimental shift.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 12.3m -6.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Failing to convert on his sole offensive purpose, his inability to knock down spot-up looks tanked the team's spacing. Opponents aggressively stunted off him, bogging down the half-court offense. Offering virtually zero resistance at the point of attack made him a massive liability during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 10.3m -5.8
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

A brief and unproductive stint was defined by poor positioning and blown finishes around the basket. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage, getting caught in no-man's land on defensive rotations. The inability to capitalize on his limited touches quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 4.2m -2.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Garbage time minutes offered no opportunity to make a tangible impact on the game. He simply initiated the offense and ran out the clock without forcing any action. A completely neutral stint with no statistical footprint to evaluate.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Despite failing to register a shot attempt in limited action, he managed to stay positive through quick ball movement. He made the right extra pass in transition to keep the offense flowing. A brief but fundamentally sound appearance that avoided any negative plays.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0