GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
29
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.5

Relentless rim pressure and a willingness to absorb contact compensated for a somewhat inefficient shooting volume. He broke down the primary defense constantly, forcing secondary rotations that opened up the floor. A crucial stretch of self-created perimeter daggers in the third quarter ultimately cemented his positive influence.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 35.4m -20.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 33.6m
24
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.1

Elite vertical spacing and flawless execution in the pick-and-roll carved up the interior defense. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, generating easy buckets before the defense could set. Sustaining his recent hot streak, his ability to finish through contact at the rim anchored the team's offensive success.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 33.6m -19.9
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 30.6m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense and timely weak-side cuts fueled a massive breakout performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's primary ball-handlers, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities. This two-way versatility provided a massive spark and drove his elite impact rating.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 30.6m -18.0
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S De'Andre Hunter 29.9m
29
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Capitalizing on smaller defenders in the mid-post consistently generated high-quality looks and drove his positive value. He established a commanding rhythm early by attacking closeouts with decisive straight-line drives. This aggressive, mismatch-hunting approach kept the opposing defense scrambling all night.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 29.9m -17.7
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 24.6m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Despite active hands and strong rim deterrence, an inability to establish deep post position limited his overall effectiveness. He was repeatedly pushed off his spots by stronger defenders, leading to stagnant offensive possessions. This failure to anchor the paint offensively slightly outweighed his otherwise solid defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 24.6m -14.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Sam Merrill 27.5m
8
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.6

Being constantly targeted on defense completely erased the value of his secondary playmaking. Opponents relentlessly hunted him in switch actions, easily blowing by him for high-percentage looks at the rim. The defensive bleed was simply too severe for his perimeter shooting to offset.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.9
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 27.5m -16.4
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 22.3m
2
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.3

A complete lack of offensive aggression and poor navigation of ball screens resulted in a highly detrimental stint. He repeatedly picked up his dribble too early, stalling the offense and leading to late-clock bail-out situations. This inability to initiate sets or contain dribble penetration at the point of attack cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.9
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 22.3m -13.3
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 19.2m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Passing up open looks and bricking the few perimeter shots he did take severely cramped the team's half-court spacing. Opposing defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to pack the paint and stifle drives. Even with solid defensive rotations, his offensive invisibility dragged his net score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 19.2m -11.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Settling exclusively for contested perimeter jumpers prevented him from establishing any real offensive rhythm. While he spaced the floor adequately, his reluctance to attack closeouts made him entirely predictable. This one-dimensional approach resulted in a slightly negative overall impact despite decent defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -70.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 12.6m -7.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brief, chaotic stint featured missed defensive assignments that immediately led to opponent scores. He looked out of sync with the rotation, getting caught ball-watching on two separate backdoor cuts. Those quick defensive lapses were enough to sink his impact score during limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -104.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 4.2m -2.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 32.8m
15
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.5

Tremendous defensive rebounding and anticipation were completely overshadowed by a brutal volume-shooting performance. Forcing up heavily contested floaters and wild drives cratered his offensive efficiency. His refusal to defer when the jumper wasn't falling actively harmed the team's spacing and offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.9
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 32.8m -19.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 32.5m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

High-efficiency perimeter spacing drove his positive value, as he consistently punished defensive rotations when left open. This low-usage, high-yield offensive pattern maximized his floor time without demanding the ball. A steady stream of timely corner threes offset a relatively quiet defensive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 32.5m -19.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Jones 30.1m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Snapping a highly efficient shooting streak, his struggles to finish through contact at the rim slightly outweighed his strong hustle metrics. He generated great rim pressure but failed to convert those drives into actual points. A pattern of empty possessions in the paint ultimately suppressed his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 30.1m -17.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.1

Despite solid defensive positioning and rim deterrence, clunky offensive execution dragged his net rating into the red. Repeatedly missing favorable looks in the pick-and-pop disrupted the team's half-court rhythm. The inability to capitalize on mismatch post-ups ultimately negated his otherwise sturdy interior presence.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 29.4m -17.3
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 17.6m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.1

Poor shot selection and an inability to find a rhythm completely tanked his overall impact. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock created transition opportunities for the opponent. This severe regression from his recent scoring tear highlighted a glaring lack of secondary ways to affect the game when his shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -4.7
Avg player in 17.6m -10.4
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Exceptional off-ball movement and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a highly positive two-way performance. He consistently generated extra possessions through deflections while converting efficiently on the other end. A sustained stretch of disruptive perimeter defense in the second half solidified his strong net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 28.6m -17.0
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

Breaking out of a severe slump, his selective but highly accurate perimeter shooting perfectly balanced his overall output. He operated exclusively as a floor-spacer, punishing late closeouts without forcing the issue. This disciplined shot profile resulted in a perfectly neutral net impact despite limited total touches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 23.5m -13.9
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 22.8m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A lack of off-ball engagement and failure to secure loose balls slightly dragged down an otherwise decent scoring night. He struggled to navigate through screens, allowing his matchup too much breathing room on the perimeter. That persistent defensive leakage ultimately tipped his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 22.8m -13.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 18.6m
18
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.6

Flawless offensive execution and dominant interior positioning resulted in a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor. He completely neutralized the opponent's drop coverage by stepping out and burying every trail three he attempted. This perfect shooting display, combined with sturdy rim protection, defined his elite impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 130.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 18.6m -11.0
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Brief but energetic rotational minutes provided a minor boost to the defensive unit. He stayed disciplined on his assignments, preventing any easy penetration during his short stint. Simply holding the fort without making mistakes allowed him to post a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 4.1m -2.5
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0