GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
46
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+30.9

Offensive shot creation reached a nuclear level, fundamentally breaking the opponent's defensive schemes through sheer efficiency. He relentlessly punished drop coverage with lethal pull-up shooting while maintaining excellent ball security to maximize every possession. The sheer gravity of his perimeter attack opened up the floor, driving a stratospheric overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 15/21 (71.4%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +42.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +50.7
Avg player in 35.1m -19.8
Impact +30.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 34.0m
23
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Stellar rim protection and active hands were somewhat muted by offensive turnovers and mistimed screens that stalled half-court sets. While his defensive anchoring was undeniable, a stretch of sloppy ball-handling in the third quarter prevented his overall impact from matching his scoring volume. He dominated his individual matchup but struggled with the team's spacing concepts.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 34.0m -19.3
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jarrett Allen 29.5m
24
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+30.6

Put together an absolute masterclass in interior dominance, driven by staggering defensive metrics and relentless activity on the glass. He completely erased the paint for opposing drivers while generating massive value through screen assists and contested rebounds. A commanding third-quarter stretch of rim protection and lob-finishing effectively broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +9.9
Defense +14.1
Raw total +47.4
Avg player in 29.5m -16.8
Impact +30.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jaylon Tyson 28.7m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite hustle metrics and gritty point-of-attack defense were the true engines behind his highly positive floor game. He consistently won 50/50 balls and disrupted passing lanes, generating extra possessions that swung the momentum in the second half. His willingness to do the dirty work elevated the entire lineup's defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 28.7m -16.3
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Darius Garland 26.1m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.9

A brutal shooting night and poor decision-making in the pick-and-roll severely damaged his overall effectiveness. Despite showing commendable effort on loose balls, his inability to break down the primary defender led to forced passes and dead-end possessions. The offense consistently bogged down during his shifts as he failed to find any rhythm against physical perimeter pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 26.1m -14.7
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Sam Merrill 26.8m
14
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Lethal perimeter marksmanship was entirely undone by glaring vulnerabilities on the defensive end of the floor. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in switch actions, easily generating blow-by drives that collapsed the team's defensive shell. The points he generated from deep were quickly given right back through poor closeouts and missed rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 26.8m -15.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 22.7m
0
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-10.8

A complete lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to aggressively sag off him, severely clogging the team's offensive spacing. While he kept the ball moving, his passivity and likely live-ball turnovers created disastrous transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to punish the defense during a crucial second-quarter stretch ultimately tanked his net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 22.7m -12.9
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.7

Offensive stagnation and poor shot selection defined a highly detrimental rotation stint. He repeatedly drove into traffic without an exit plan, resulting in empty possessions and a stalled half-court attack. His inability to generate any rim pressure or connect the offense allowed the opposition to build significant momentum during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 18.1m -10.3
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Struggled to anchor the second-unit defense, consistently arriving late on weak-side rotations and failing to protect the rim. While he found some success operating in the dunker spot, his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds gave the opposition costly second-chance opportunities. The defensive leakage ultimately outweighed his modest offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 15.1m -8.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A disastrous sixty-second appearance featured immediate mistakes that heavily penalized his net rating. Whether through a blown coverage or a careless offensive foul, his brief time on the floor actively hurt the team's momentum. He was quickly pulled after failing to execute basic rotational assignments.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by executing a flawless defensive possession before the buzzer. His active hands and proper positioning disrupted the opponent's final action of the quarter. It was a textbook example of a situational substitution working exactly as intended.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely broke a sweat during a fleeting garbage-time appearance that yielded a slightly negative impact score. He was caught out of position on a single defensive sequence, which was enough to tip his metrics into the red. The sample size was simply too small to draw any meaningful long-term conclusions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 0.6m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Made a microscopic but positive cameo at the end of a quarter, likely executing a specific defensive assignment or securing a loose ball. His brief seconds on the floor were perfectly functional but too short to evaluate meaningfully. He did exactly what was asked during a situational substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 0.6m -0.4
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 38.0m
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

A high-volume scoring night was entirely negated by defensive lapses and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent transition runs. He forced several contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, stalling the offensive flow. This performance was a classic case of empty offensive calories masking a detrimental overall floor game.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 38.0m -21.5
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 37.2m
7
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-16.3

An abysmal shooting night cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly settled for contested perimeter jumpers instead of attacking the paint. The sheer volume of missed shots fueled long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opposition. A prolonged third-quarter shooting slump defined a performance where his offensive struggles completely outweighed his adequate hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 37.2m -21.1
Impact -16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyrese Maxey 36.5m
27
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.5

Perimeter scoring and defensive engagement were offset by a slew of costly turnovers that dragged his net impact into the negative. He struggled to navigate aggressive pick-and-roll blitzes in the fourth quarter, coughing up possessions that led directly to opponent points. Despite the efficient offensive output, his inability to protect the basketball severely limited his actual effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 36.5m -20.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Adem Bona 18.3m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

High-energy defensive metrics were completely overshadowed by offensive clumsiness and likely foul trouble. He struggled to finish through contact around the rim, leading to empty trips that killed offensive momentum. His over-aggressiveness defending the pick-and-roll ultimately compromised the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 18.3m -10.4
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jabari Walker 8.3m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Made his presence felt entirely through off-ball activity and defensive positioning during a brief rotation stint. By crashing the glass and disrupting passing lanes, he generated crucial extra possessions without needing a single offensive touch. His ability to anchor the second-unit defense for an eight-minute stretch kept the team in the positive.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -97.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 8.3m -4.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

An uncharacteristically explosive scoring output was undermined by poor point-of-attack defense and late-game defensive miscommunications. He consistently lost his man fighting through screens, surrendering easy driving lanes that negated his offensive contributions. The scoring surge looked great on paper but failed to translate to winning basketball due to his vulnerabilities on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.9
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 32.0m -18.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
13
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

Completely dominated the interior with elite rim protection and relentless activity on the offensive glass. His physical presence deterred multiple drives during a pivotal second-quarter run, anchoring the defense while providing highly efficient clean-up scoring. The combination of vertical spacing and defensive intimidation resulted in a massively positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 28.1m -15.9
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.3

Provided a massive two-way spark off the bench by combining highly efficient shot selection with disruptive defensive versatility. He consistently blew up opponent hand-off actions, turning deflections into immediate transition opportunities. His ability to connect the offense while playing physical, mistake-free defense drove a highly productive rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 23.1m -13.0
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Flashes of perimeter shot-making were erased by sluggish defensive rotations and a lack of physical engagement. He was frequently targeted in isolation matchups, bleeding points that quickly wiped out his offensive gains. A failure to close out on shooters during his second-half stint cemented a distinctly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.3
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 16.4m -9.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

A fleeting garbage-time appearance was marred by immediate mistakes that tanked his brief statistical window. Coughing up the ball or committing a quick foul in just over a minute of action resulted in a disproportionately negative rating. He failed to establish any rhythm or defensive footing during the cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Logged just enough time to register a minor hustle event before the final buzzer sounded. His brief stint was entirely neutral, defined only by a quick effort play in transition. There simply wasn't enough floor time to generate a meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0