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

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 41.5m
43
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+32.9

Carried an astronomical offensive burden, using his elite speed to generate constant rim pressure and open up the perimeter. His massive impact score was driven by high-efficiency shot creation and an uncharacteristic level of defensive disruption. He repeatedly abused drop coverage by stepping into rhythm pull-up threes, completely dictating the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 15/32 (46.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.5m
Scoring +30.3
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +8.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 39.8m
25
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+27.2

Thrived as a chaotic slasher, leveraging his athleticism to draw fouls and finish through contact in the painted area. His massive positive impact was heavily bolstered by aggressive weak-side help defense and relentless offensive rebounding. A second-quarter barrage of transition finishes completely broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Scoring +19.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +8.8
Defense +3.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 39.2m
26
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.8

Sliced through the defense with exceptional burst, consistently beating primary defenders off the dribble to create high-leverage scoring chances. His positive impact was stabilized by active hands in the passing lanes and disciplined closeouts. A sustained stretch of downhill attacks in the third quarter kept the offense humming efficiently.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Adem Bona 24.6m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Anchored the second unit with phenomenal rim-protection instincts, altering multiple shots at the summit. His offensive limitations kept his overall impact muted, as he struggled to set solid screens or roll with purpose. However, his sheer vertical deterrence in the paint ensured he remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +38.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jabari Walker 14.3m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

Shot selection was his undoing, as a series of forced, contested jumpers derailed the offensive flow and led to long rebounds for the opponent. He struggled to stay attached to his man on the perimeter, yielding a negative defensive rating. His inability to convert in the paint completely nullified his solid work on the offensive glass.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.1

Bleeding points at the point of attack severely undercut his spot-up shooting contributions. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, failing to navigate screens and allowing straight-line drives to the rim. Despite knocking down open looks from deep, his defensive porousness made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -6.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Dominated the physical real estate in the paint, using his massive frame to generate crucial extra possessions via offensive rebounds. His defensive positioning deterred drives, but his overall impact was limited by clunky offensive execution and poor spacing. He served as a pure situational bruiser, effectively neutralizing the opponent's interior size.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Struggled to find the game's rhythm, forcing contested perimeter looks that stalled the offensive momentum. His poor defensive awareness led to multiple blown assignments and easy backdoor cuts for the opposition. A lack of decisive action on either end of the floor resulted in a heavily negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Eric Gordon 10.9m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Provided a quick injection of floor spacing, punishing defensive rotations with decisive catch-and-shoot execution. He surprisingly held his own at the point of attack, preventing blow-bys against quicker guards. His veteran savvy in finding soft spots in the zone kept his brief minutes in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.8

Barely saw the floor but managed to negatively impact the defensive scheme by blowing a rotation in transition. His extremely brief stint was entirely defined by a single defensive lapse before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 38.1m
32
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+27.3

Dominated the physical matchups in the half-court, using his size to consistently collapse the defense and generate high-value offensive possessions. His massive impact score was driven by excellent defensive rotations and a steady diet of drawn fouls that crippled the opponent's interior rotation. A relentless downhill approach defined his stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +25.9
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Franz Wagner 36.2m
22
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.4

Highly efficient shot creation fueled a strong offensive rating, though his overall impact was muted by average hustle metrics. He consistently exploited defensive rotations on the wing to generate high-quality looks at the rim. Solid positional defense kept him in the green despite a quiet night on the glass.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +17.9
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Desmond Bane 34.4m
24
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.1

Defensive liabilities completely erased a highly productive scoring night, as he was repeatedly targeted and blown by on the perimeter. While he found great success hunting pull-up jumpers in transition, his poor closeouts bled points on the other end. The scoring volume was ultimately empty calories due to his inability to stay in front of his man.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -5.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Despite anchoring the paint with elite rim-protection metrics, his offensive struggles severely dragged down his net impact. A pattern of missed bunnies and forced looks in the paint negated his excellent work on the glass. His inability to finish through contact allowed the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +10.8
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 20.5m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and diving for loose balls generated strong hustle metrics, but offensive disjointedness kept his overall impact slightly negative. He struggled to initiate clean half-court sets, leading to stalled possessions that allowed the defense to reset. His chaotic energy was a double-edged sword that disrupted both teams equally.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Sunk by offensive passivity and poor spacing, his inability to threaten the defense allowed opponents to aggressively double-team the primary creators. He provided excellent perimeter containment, but his hesitation to shoot off the catch killed multiple offensive possessions. The stark contrast between his defensive utility and offensive detriment defined his stint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.8

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, failing to register a single point while missing his few perimeter looks. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against Orlando's drivers. While his team-defense principles were sound, his offensive invisibility created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 14.1m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.9

Elite drop-coverage execution yielded strong defensive metrics, but his offensive clumsiness tanked his overall rating. He repeatedly clogged the dunker spot and failed to secure contested entry passes, leading to dead-end possessions. His rim deterrence couldn't compensate for being an absolute non-factor on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyus Jones 10.3m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Provided immediate stabilizing value as a floor general, orchestrating clean sets and ensuring zero wasted possessions. His positive impact was anchored by sharp defensive positioning that disrupted passing lanes without gambling. He perfectly executed the backup point guard role by simply keeping the offense on schedule.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 6.8m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

Made the most of a brief rotation stint by converting highly opportunistic looks within the flow of the offense. His defensive rotations were a step slow, but his decisive off-ball cutting kept his overall impact slightly positive. A quick burst of timely execution defined his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.2

Logged under a minute of garbage-time action, making no measurable impact on the game's outcome. He essentially operated as a cardio participant during the final meaningless possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0