GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 38.1m
33
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.3

Sheer offensive volume masked a highly inefficient shooting night that featured 16 missed field goals. While his relentless attacking kept the defense on its heels and drove a strong box score, the wasted possessions capped his overall ceiling. Serving as the primary engine of the offense allowed him to power through the misses and maintain a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 38.1m -20.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 36.3m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Exceptional hustle and relentless energy (+7.5) were completely undone by erratic perimeter shooting. Clanking five attempts from beyond the arc killed offensive spacing and allowed the defense to sag into the paint. His aggressive but undisciplined shot profile ultimately yielded a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +7.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 36.3m -19.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Andre Drummond 34.6m
17
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

An unexpected and highly efficient scoring explosion, highlighted by shocking success from the perimeter, drove a massive positive impact. Controlling the glass and altering shots in the paint (+6.0 Def) provided a dominant two-way anchor. Forcing the opposing bigs to respect his outside shot completely scrambled their defensive coverages.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 34.6m -18.4
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 31.7m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Offensive struggles and poor finishing at the rim dragged his net impact into the red. Despite generating solid defensive pressure and active hustle (+5.3), his inability to convert on the other end created empty possessions. A noticeable dip in his usual scoring efficiency defined a frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 31.7m -16.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Trendon Watford 24.8m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact severely hampered his overall effectiveness. While his individual defensive metrics were passable, offensive stagnation during his minutes dragged the team's net rating down. Forcing contested looks in the mid-range stalled out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 24.8m -13.3
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.1

Solid point-of-attack defense (+5.1) and disciplined shot selection weren't enough to prevent a negative net rating. He suffered from being caught in unfavorable lineup combinations that bled points during transition sequences. Despite hitting his open looks, his overall impact was dragged down by the struggles of the units he played with.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 29.7m -15.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Flawless perimeter execution and hyper-efficient finishing fueled a massive scoring surge off the bench. Capitalizing on every given opportunity without forcing the issue maximized his offensive value in limited minutes. This decisive, mistake-free shot profile directly translated into a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 17.5m -9.4
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Adem Bona 12.5m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

Elite rim protection and switchability (+8.2 Def) completely defined this highly impactful rotational stint. He abandoned any offensive ambitions to focus entirely on blowing up pick-and-roll actions and securing the paint. This defensive specialization swung momentum and generated a stellar net rating despite a scoreless night.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 12.5m -6.8
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Rushing his perimeter looks resulted in a scoreless outing that stalled the second unit's momentum. While he tried to compensate with active hands on defense (+1.9 Def), the empty offensive trips were too costly. The inability to find his rhythm quickly relegated him to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +41.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 8.8m -4.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

A brief and entirely unproductive stint saw him targeted defensively (-0.8 Def) without providing any floor-spacing value. Failing to register a single positive hustle play allowed opponents to capitalize on his lack of mobility. His minutes were a clear net negative before being quickly pulled from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +49.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 5.9m -3.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 40.6m
26
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
+1.4

Heavy offensive usage and elite shot-creation drove a strong base impact, though inefficiency from deep slightly capped his overall ceiling. His exceptional hustle metrics (+6.7) highlight a willingness to fight through screens and contest late in the shot clock. Dictating the tempo as the primary initiator defined his grueling 40-minute shift.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense +5.1
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 40.6m -21.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jalen Duren 37.4m
21
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.4

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact score. Continuing a reliable streak of high-percentage finishing, he punished mismatches inside while anchoring the paint defensively (+10.5 Def). His elite rim protection and relentless glass-cleaning neutralized the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.5
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 37.4m -19.9
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ausar Thompson 33.9m
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

A highly efficient offensive surge compared to his recent baseline paired beautifully with his usual defensive intensity. Strong perimeter containment and active hands (+7.0 Def) anchored his positive overall impact. His ability to capitalize on limited touches without forcing bad shots defined his impressive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 33.9m -18.0
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.6

Severe offensive inefficiency completely cratered his overall impact despite respectable defensive metrics. Clanking 12 shots on high volume stalled offensive momentum and fueled opponent transition opportunities. While his point-of-attack defense (+6.1) remained a bright spot, the sheer number of empty possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.3%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.1
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 33.2m -17.7
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 30.0m
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Perimeter spacing and timely shot-making from beyond the arc kept the offense flowing smoothly. He generated significant gravity that opened up driving lanes for teammates, resulting in a strong box score impact. Staying disciplined within his role rather than forcing contested looks defined his steady contribution.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 30.0m -16.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

A lack of offensive assertiveness and minimal off-ball gravity severely dragged down his net impact. Despite decent baseline hustle, he repeatedly vanished during crucial half-court sets. The inability to punish defensive rotations left his team playing four-on-five on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 28.2m -15.0
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Caris LeVert 20.5m
14
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

Blistering perimeter efficiency in limited minutes provided a massive spark for the second unit. Capitalizing on catch-and-shoot opportunities rather than over-dribbling maximized his offensive value. This decisive shot selection drove a highly efficient scoring surge that swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 20.5m -10.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Paul Reed 10.6m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.9

Defensive activity and relentless energy in a short burst yielded an exceptionally high net rating. He disrupted passing lanes and contested effectively at the rim (+4.9 Def) to stall the opponent's second unit. Accepting a lower-usage offensive role allowed his defensive motor to shine.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 10.6m -5.8
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brief rotational cameo was defined entirely by high-energy hustle plays rather than statistical production. While he failed to make a dent offensively, his willingness to dive for loose balls (+3.5 Hustle) kept his overall impact from cratering. He served strictly as a temporary energy injection.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -96.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 5.6m -2.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1