GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 32.0m
20
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Generated plenty of raw offense, but his negative net impact suggests he bled points on the defensive end and disrupted the team's overall rhythm. Opposing guards consistently targeted him at the point of attack, neutralizing his scoring contributions. A classic case of high-volume production failing to translate into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 32.0m -18.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 30.7m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Anchored the defense with spectacular rim protection and switchability, yet still finished in the red. His offensive limitations and clunky spacing allowed the opposition to load up on primary creators, stalling the team's overall flow. The elite defensive metrics couldn't fully offset the structural damage done on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense +7.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 30.7m -18.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Quentin Grimes 26.9m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-17.6

An absolute nightmare of a shooting performance completely derailed the offense and led to a catastrophic negative net impact. His insistence on launching heavily contested perimeter shots fueled long rebounds and easy transition points for the opponent. The total collapse of his recent efficiency dragged the entire lineup down with him.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -57.2
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 26.9m -15.9
Impact -17.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andre Drummond 22.3m
3
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

A disastrous offensive outing completely cratered his overall impact despite his usual dominance on the glass. He forced ugly looks in the paint and clogged driving lanes, effectively acting as a secondary defender against his own teammates. The defensive rebounding couldn't salvage a performance that actively derailed the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -66.3
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 22.3m -13.2
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Justin Edwards 22.1m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite a massive scoring surge compared to his recent baseline, his net impact plunged due to hidden costs like poor transition defense and mistimed rotations. He gave back nearly every point he generated by getting caught out of position on the other end. The raw production was a mirage masking a deeply flawed structural performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 22.1m -13.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Jared McCain 24.9m
15
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Broke out of a minor scoring slump with aggressive drives, but his inability to navigate screens on defense kept his overall impact negative. He was consistently hunted in pick-and-roll actions, forcing the defense into scramble mode. The offensive spark was undeniable, but the defensive bleeding was too severe to ignore.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -55.4
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.9
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 24.9m -14.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Eric Gordon 22.4m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Delivered a masterclass in veteran efficiency, punishing defensive mistakes without requiring heavy usage. His surprisingly robust defensive impact came from disciplined positioning and fighting through off-ball screens to deny catch-and-shoot opportunities. He maximized every second of his floor time by making the simple, correct play.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 22.4m -13.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Tripled his recent scoring average by attacking closeouts, but his minutes were still a massive net negative for the team. He struggled with defensive rotations and failed to secure critical defensive rebounds, extending opponent possessions. The offensive uptick was a nice bonus, but his fundamental breakdowns elsewhere proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 21.3m -12.6
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Johni Broome 17.1m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Salvaged a horrific shooting night by transforming into an absolute terror on the defensive interior. He completely abandoned his offensive game to focus on altering shots and blowing up pick-and-roll actions. The elite rim deterrence perfectly balanced out the offensive dead weight to keep his impact neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 17.1m -10.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Provided a quick infusion of flawless finishing around the basket, yet struggled to make a positive dent in the overall margin. His defensive awareness was a step slow, frequently getting sealed off early in the post or losing track of cutters. The perfect shooting clip was undone by a steady stream of defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 10.7m -6.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Faded into the background during his brief stint, offering zero resistance defensively and failing to initiate any meaningful offense. He was too passive when the ball swung his way, allowing the defense to reset and load up elsewhere. A highly forgettable shift that actively stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 9.4m -5.5
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 28.6m
15
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.6

Perimeter shot-making completely abandoned him, dragging his overall impact into the red despite solid defensive effort. The sheer volume of empty possessions from deep stunted the team's momentum during critical stretches. He tried to compensate with active hands in the passing lanes, but the offensive inefficiency was too steep to overcome.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +71.3
+/- +44
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 28.6m -16.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Franz Wagner 26.6m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.8

A massive surge in downhill aggression fueled a highly impactful two-way performance. He consistently broke down his primary matchups off the dribble, creating high-leverage scoring opportunities at the rim. Elite defensive positioning ensured his scoring burst translated directly to a dominant bottom line.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 26.6m -15.8
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient finishing by dominating the interior spaces and sealing off defenders early. His positive impact was driven by physical screen-setting and disciplined rim deterrence that anchored the half-court defense. He never forced the action, letting the game come to him while punishing mismatches in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +67.6
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 21.8m -12.9
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Despite a sharp dip in his usual offensive volume, his value stayed afloat through steady weak-side rotations. He sacrificed his own looks within the flow of the offense, focusing instead on spacing and timely closeouts. The muted aggression limited his ceiling but kept the floor perfectly stable.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 17.5m -10.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 15.7m
4
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+8.2

Completely abandoned his own scoring to function as a pure defensive menace and elite offensive connector. His massive net positive was entirely driven by relentless point-of-attack harassment and elite hustle metrics that blew up opponent sets. He dictated the tempo of the game without needing to look at the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 15.7m -9.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
31
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.9

Took absolute control of the offense with a devastating combination of perimeter shot-making and downhill pressure. His staggering box impact stemmed from exploiting drop coverages and punishing late rotations. This was a masterclass in aggressive, high-efficiency shot selection that overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +52.4
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +29.4
Avg player in 27.9m -16.5
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Noah Penda 21.8m
10
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Erupted out of a massive scoring slump by finding soft spots in the transition defense and converting high-energy looks. His relentless activity on the margins generated crucial second-chance opportunities and loose-ball recoveries. The sudden burst of offensive competence completely shifted the dynamic of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +53.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 21.8m -12.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 19.6m
10
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Shattered his recent offensive baseline by capitalizing on dump-offs and offensive glass opportunities. His value skyrocketed thanks to a gritty combination of paint enforcement and high-motor hustle plays that secured extra possessions. He dominated the physical battles in the trenches to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 19.6m -11.5
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jett Howard 18.4m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Found an offensive rhythm early by hunting his spots, though his overall impact was heavily muted by defensive passivity. He bled value on the other end of the floor, failing to contain dribble penetration or navigate screens effectively. The scoring spike was necessary, but the two-way trade-off kept him hovering near neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 18.4m -11.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 15.9m
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.7

Bounced back from a horrific scoreless stretch by rediscovering his touch from the perimeter. He stabilized the second unit's offense through methodical pacing and mistake-free ball distribution. The lack of defensive resistance capped his overall ceiling, but his steady hand was exactly what the rotation needed.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 15.9m -9.4
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Kept his offensive momentum rolling with opportunistic cuts and decisive drives, though his limited court time restricted his total footprint. He played within himself, avoiding costly mistakes while providing a quick spark of energy. A quiet but perfectly functional shift that kept the rotation gears turning.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 10.0m -5.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 9.4m
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

A sudden and severe drop-off in offensive involvement tanked his value after a red-hot stretch of games. He floated on the perimeter without demanding the ball, allowing defenders to completely ignore him in the half-court. The lack of engagement created spacing issues that stalled out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 9.4m -5.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Made his brief appearance felt strictly through interior defense and physical post positioning. He offered zero threat as a scorer, but his ability to wall off the paint prevented easy looks at the rim. A purely situational shift designed to plug defensive holes rather than generate offense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 6.6m -3.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0