GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
37
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.1

An absolute flamethrower from beyond the arc, his elite shot-making single-handedly broke the opposing defensive scheme. He punished drop coverage with deep pull-up threes, forcing defensive rotations that opened up the entire floor. This offensive explosion completely reversed his recent efficiency slump, driving a massive +15.1 net rating.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 8/15 (53.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.7%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 36.0m -19.7
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Evan Mobley 34.6m
14
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

Defensive dominance (+12.5 Def) acted as a massive stabilizing force on a night where his usually reliable touch abandoned him. He snapped a long streak of highly efficient shooting by rushing hook shots and floaters in traffic. However, his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls and alter shots at the rim ensured his overall impact remained firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +12.5
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 34.6m -19.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S De'Andre Hunter 30.7m
19
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Perimeter bricklaying threatened to derail his night, but elite wing containment (+7.8 Def) salvaged a positive overall rating. He repeatedly forced difficult, contested jumpers from his primary assignment, neutralizing the opposition's perimeter attack. The sheer volume of his missed threes hurt offensive flow, yet his defensive tenacity kept the lineup in the black.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 30.7m -16.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 24.7m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

A barrage of confident perimeter shooting stretched the defense and provided a massive scoring surge off the bench. Despite the hot hand from deep, his overall impact was heavily muted by defensive lapses (-0.8 Def) and poor closeouts. He essentially traded baskets for long stretches, giving back much of the value he generated offensively.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 24.7m -13.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Larry Nance Jr. 24.6m
2
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.9

Offensive futility completely tanked his rating, as he short-armed multiple clean looks around the basket and clanked every perimeter attempt. The missed bunnies killed offensive momentum and frequently left the transition defense scrambling. While he brought decent energy to the glass (+4.5 Hustle), it wasn't nearly enough to mask the scoring black hole.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 24.6m -13.4
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 26.5m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.4

Stagnant offensive pacing and an inability to collapse the defense off the dribble severely hindered his unit's efficiency. He settled for contested perimeter looks rather than pressuring the rim, allowing the defense to stay home on shooters. A near-zero defensive impact meant he offered no resistance at the point of attack to offset his offensive passivity.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 26.5m -14.5
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Dean Wade 25.3m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Relentless activity on loose balls and long rebounds (+9.3 Hustle) generated crucial extra possessions that fueled his high impact score. He snapped out of a recent shooting funk by confidently stepping into rhythm jumpers within the flow of the offense. His timely weak-side defensive rotations further cemented a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +9.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 25.3m -13.9
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operated strictly as a low-mistake game manager, taking only the high-percentage looks the defense surrendered. His disciplined point-of-attack defense (+3.0 Def) prevented dribble penetration and kept the rotation intact. While the raw production was minimal, his refusal to force bad shots provided a stabilizing, neutral presence.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 21.2m -11.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

A perfectly neutral outing where his limited offensive touches failed to move the needle in either direction. He snapped a recent streak of high-efficiency shooting by forcing a pair of contested perimeter looks that failed to draw iron. Defensively, he mostly floated on the perimeter without generating any meaningful disruption.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.4
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 11.2m -6.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Brought immediate physicality to the paint during a very brief rotational stint, anchoring a solid defensive rating (+4.5 Def). He was completely blanked on the offensive end, failing to establish deep post position in his limited touches. Still, his rim deterrence in drop coverage ensured his short shift was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -67.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 5.4m -2.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 36.2m
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.3

An absolute masterclass in disruption fueled a staggering +17.3 overall impact. Relentless ball pressure and passing lane anticipation generated massive hustle and defensive ratings, completely derailing the opponent's offensive rhythm. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by finishing aggressively at the rim, surging well past his usual scoring output.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +12.9
Defense +12.3
Raw total +37.1
Avg player in 36.2m -19.8
Impact +17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Johnson 34.8m
23
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.4

Elite two-way execution drove a highly positive impact score, anchored by suffocating defensive versatility (+8.2 Def). He consistently punished mismatches in the half-court to generate high-percentage looks, continuing his recent tear of efficient volume scoring. His activity on the glass and in transition (+5.0 Hustle) set the physical tone for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 34.8m -19.0
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.8

Brutal shot selection and clanking perimeter jumpers cratered his overall value (-11.8). Coming off a highly efficient stretch, he forced heavily contested looks that consistently stalled half-court possessions. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition pushes, entirely erasing his modest defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 34.0m -18.6
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
15
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.2

Rim protection and interior gravity anchored a solid positive rating despite a completely cold night from beyond the arc. He forced opponents to alter their shot trajectories in the paint, masking the damage of his perimeter misfires. His steady rebounding rate ensured defensive stops successfully converted into transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 27.5m -15.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.1

Strong defensive rotations (+7.5 Def) kept his head above water despite a muted offensive showing. His inability to stretch the floor from deep limited Atlanta's spacing, though he maintained his recent trend of efficient interior finishing. A neutral overall outing defined by low-usage reliability.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 24.0m -13.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Luke Kennard 31.8m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Lethal spot-up spacing warped the defense, though his overall impact remained surprisingly muted (+0.7). He capitalized brilliantly on catch-and-shoot opportunities, punishing late closeouts to nearly double his recent scoring average. However, defensive limitations on the perimeter allowed opponents to target him in pick-and-roll switches, offsetting his offensive spark.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 109.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 31.8m -17.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.1

Struggled mightily to establish deep post position, leading to a slew of off-balance, low-percentage attempts in the paint. His inability to finish through contact tanked his offensive rating and allowed the defense to sag off him. A stark regression from his recent production, as his lack of offensive gravity bogged down the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 25.9m -14.1
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

A complete lack of physical engagement and wayward perimeter shooting dragged down his rotational value. He settled for contested, late-clock bail-out threes rather than attacking closeouts. Defensively, he was a step slow navigating screens, allowing open driving lanes that compromised the weak-side help.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 17.4m -9.6
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Provided a brief but stable frontcourt presence during his limited rotation minutes. He didn't force any action offensively, taking only what the defense conceded to maintain perfect efficiency. Solid positional discipline on defense ensured he didn't bleed points while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 8.4m -4.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1