GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
31
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.7

Heavy shot volume masked a highly inefficient perimeter performance. Bogged down the offense by dominating the ball and settling for contested step-back triples late in the shot clock. The sheer number of empty possessions outweighed his overall scoring output.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 15/17 (88.2%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 37.2%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 35.7m -21.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 7
S Evan Mobley 34.8m
7
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact at the rim tanked his offensive value. Despite solid weak-side rim protection, his inability to punish smaller defenders in the post proved costly. Rushed his hook shots when facing immediate double-teams.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 34.8m -20.9
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Andre Hunter 27.4m
16
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.7

A steady diet of low-efficiency isolation looks stalled the team's offensive flow. Forced too many contested mid-range pull-ups against set defenses instead of moving the ball. His inability to convert from the perimeter allowed opponents to easily collapse on drives.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 27.4m -16.5
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 27.2m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Opponents aggressively chased him off the line, resulting in rushed, off-balance heaves. This high-variance shooting profile sparked long rebounds and transition counters for the other team. Failed to counter the aggressive closeouts with decisive straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 27.2m -16.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jarrett Allen 20.9m
6
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

High hustle and disciplined defense kept him afloat despite a remarkably quiet offensive night. Anchored the defense with textbook verticality, though he was largely frozen out of the offensive game plan. Excelled at sealing off driving lanes to force contested floaters.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 20.9m -12.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.6

Elite point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation. Paired that perimeter harassment with decisive, timely cuts to the basket for high-percentage finishes. His relentless ball pressure forced opposing guards out of their sets.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 24.4m -14.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
18
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.9

Dominated the interior with relentless energy and elite finishing around the basket. His ability to consistently beat his man down the floor in transition broke the game open. Punished smaller defenders on the offensive glass to generate crucial extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 21.5m -13.0
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 20.8m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

A complete lack of offensive gravity allowed his primary defender to freely roam and double-team the ball handlers. Missing wide-open corner assignments completely neutralized his value as a floor spacer. Hesitated on the catch, which repeatedly killed the team's ball reversal rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 20.8m -12.5
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Failed to capitalize on open catch-and-shoot opportunities on the perimeter. His negative defensive impact stemmed from getting consistently caught on brush screens at the top of the key. Lack of physical resistance allowed opposing guards to easily turn the corner.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.4
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 11.1m -6.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

An invisible offensive stint left the second unit playing four-on-five. Was repeatedly targeted in the pick-and-roll, surrendering deep paint position without putting up physical resistance. Failed to secure defensive rebounding position, leading to second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -114.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 7.0m -4.2
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to anchor the drop coverage during his brief rotation, giving up uncontested floaters in the lane. A lack of rim deterrence and slow lateral movement mitigated his decent offensive touch. Was consistently late to rotate on weak-side help assignments.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +53.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 6.8m -4.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Made a measurable defensive impact in just two minutes of action. Perfectly executed a crucial late-game defensive rotation that blew up an opponent's baseline out-of-bounds play. Used his length to disrupt the passing lane and force a reset.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +53.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 2.2m -1.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.3m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-16.2

Severe perimeter inefficiency dragged his overall rating into the red. Despite positive defensive metrics, his inability to space the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint. Settling for contested perimeter jumpers derailed the half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 35.3m -21.2
Impact -16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 34.6m
28
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+18.8

Suffocating point-of-attack defense generated a massive +13.3 defensive rating. He dominated his matchups by turning live-ball stops into aggressive downhill transition attacks. This elite two-way execution completely overwhelmed the opposing wings.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +13.3
Raw total +39.5
Avg player in 34.6m -20.7
Impact +18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
25
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.1

Scorching catch-and-shoot execution broke the opposing perimeter defense wide open. His ability to punish drop coverage with quick-trigger triples drove a massive box score spike. However, defensive lapses at the point of attack kept his total impact grounded.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 31.9m -19.1
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jakob Poeltl 29.4m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.7

Controlled the interior through highly disciplined shot selection and clinical finishing. His massive box score impact was fueled by setting bone-crushing screens that repeatedly compromised the drop coverage. Anchored the paint with verticality to deter rim challengers.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +24.7
Hustle +4.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 29.4m -17.6
Impact +17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 26.9m
9
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

Poor shot selection and forced attempts in traffic neutralized his usual offensive gravity. Rather than pressuring the rim, he settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock. This lack of downhill aggression allowed the defense to easily reset.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 26.9m -16.1
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 23.8m
8
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.7

Relentless ball pressure and loose-ball recoveries padded his impressive hustle metrics. However, erratic half-court orchestration and forced passes into traffic capped his overall effectiveness. Over-penetration into the teeth of the defense led to empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 23.8m -14.2
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gradey Dick 20.9m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Struggled to maintain structural integrity off the ball, frequently bleeding points on backdoor cuts. While his limited offensive touches were highly efficient, his defensive rotations were consistently a half-step slow. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation to generate easy looks.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 20.9m -12.5
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Punished drop coverage by consistently knocking down pick-and-pop triples. His decisive quick-trigger shooting forced opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for the guards. Provided excellent spatial awareness to keep the offense flowing.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 17.0m -10.1
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Capitalized on brief rotation minutes with decisive off-ball movement. Generated positive momentum through timely hustle plays that kept offensive possessions alive. His energetic closeouts on the perimeter prevented clean looks from deep.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 12.9m -7.8
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brief, low-event stint left him with a negative net rating as the bench unit bled points. Failed to leave a footprint on either end during his short rotation window. Was caught ball-watching on two key defensive sequences.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 5.7m -3.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Served purely as a situational substitution at the end of a quarter. Maintained structural integrity on defense for a single possession without recording a counting stat. Executed his switching assignment flawlessly to prevent a buzzer-beater attempt.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0