GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 35.3m
22
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.4

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance was driven by elite rim protection and a highly confident perimeter stroke. Stretching the floor effectively opened up driving lanes for the guards, while his switchability on defense completely stifled the opponent's pick-and-roll game.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +6.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 35.3m -15.6
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 32.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 4
30
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.5

Relentless offensive aggression broke down the primary line of defense all night, yielding a massive box score impact (+13.5). Even with a high volume of missed threes, his ability to force switches and attack mismatches in isolation dictated the entire tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 32.9m -14.5
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S De'Andre Hunter 32.1m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

Defensive lapses were the primary culprit for a heavily negative overall score despite decent offensive efficiency. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts and failed to provide adequate weak-side help, bleeding points on the margins.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.4
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 32.1m -14.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 27.2m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Incredible off-ball movement and elite activity levels (+7.7 Hustle) defined a highly disruptive performance. His constant relocation exhausted his primary defenders, while a willingness to dive for loose balls created vital extra possessions for the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +7.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 27.2m -11.9
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 26.4m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

High-level screen-setting and vertical spacing generated massive offensive value (+11.2 Box). He consistently punished drop coverage with hard rolls to the rim, forcing deep defensive rotations that compromised the opponent's entire scheme.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 26.4m -11.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Dean Wade 24.5m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Surviving a quiet offensive night required him to be an absolute rock on the defensive end (+5.7 Def). He perfectly executed the team's switching scheme, denying post-entry passes and blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs to keep his overall impact positive.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +43.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 24.5m -10.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 22.0m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.1

Excellent defensive anticipation (+5.0 Def) was ultimately undermined by a lack of overall offensive volume and playmaking involvement. While he spaced the floor effectively, his reluctance to initiate the offense allowed the defense to rest whenever he was off the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 22.0m -9.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

Off-the-charts hustle (+7.4) and defensive switchability (+7.2) made him a massive net positive despite minimal scoring output. He completely changed the energy of the game by generating deflections, securing 50/50 balls, and blowing up opposing pick-and-rolls.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +7.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 17.9m -7.8
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Forcing a few drives into heavy traffic resulted in empty possessions that tilted his overall impact slightly negative. However, his point-of-attack defense mitigated the damage, as he successfully navigated screens to heavily contest pull-up jumpers.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 13.0m -5.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

A disastrously brief stint saw blown defensive assignments and rushed perimeter shots completely torpedo his value (-8.0 Total). He looked entirely out of sync with the second unit, giving up easy layups in transition before being quickly pulled from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -3.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.2
Raw total -5.9
Avg player in 4.5m -2.1
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Failing to find the rhythm that fueled his recent hot streak, he rushed two deep looks early in the shot clock. These quick, empty possessions stalled the team's offensive momentum and resulted in a negative rating during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 4.2m -1.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
26
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Massive shot volume yielded diminishing returns, as a barrage of missed field goals fed directly into opponent transition opportunities. The sheer inefficiency dragged his overall value into the red, completely neutralizing his otherwise solid hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/23 (26.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 38.3%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 32.7m -14.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Zach Edey 24.7m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.2

Elite paint deterrence (+7.7 Def) defined this highly impactful stint as he completely walled off the restricted area. He generated immense value by altering interior looks and securing contested boards, proving you don't need high usage to dictate a game's flow.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.7
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 24.7m -10.9
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 24.5m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Defensive activity (+4.4 Def) anchored his positive impact despite a slight dip from his usual offensive rhythm. His willingness to let it fly from deep maintained crucial floor spacing, while timely closeouts on the perimeter kept the opponent's guards in check.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 24.5m -10.7
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 23.9m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Severe defensive bleeding cratered his overall rating, as he consistently struggled to stay in front of his perimeter assignments. Allowing straight-line drives compromised the entire defensive shell, rendering his modest offensive contributions irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 23.9m -10.5
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja Morant 6.0m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

An extremely high-impact micro-stint was driven by perfect shot selection and immediate downhill pressure. He collapsed the defense on every possession during his brief run, generating elite offensive value before exiting the contest.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 6.0m -2.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.4

A bizarre statistical profile emerged where elite defensive disruption (+8.3 Def) was entirely undone by offensive clunkiness. He was an absolute menace at the point of attack, yet forced too many contested looks in the half-court that stalled out possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 26.8m -11.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Santi Aldama 25.0m
12
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Excellent two-way balance fueled a highly productive shift, highlighted by his ability to seamlessly connect the offense. He consistently leveraged his length to disrupt passing lanes on the other end, resulting in a stellar defensive rating (+5.5).

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 25.0m -10.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite strong hustle metrics, a lack of offensive aggression limited his overall footprint and resulted in a negative total impact. Passing up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 23.3m -10.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 19.8m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

A sharp drop in scoring production and an inability to find open space dragged his rating into the negative. He struggled to shake his primary defender coming off screens, effectively rendering him a non-factor in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 19.8m -8.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 19.4m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Poor touch around the basket severely limited his effectiveness and derailed the team's offensive momentum. While his defensive positioning remained sound, clanking multiple gimmes in the paint tanked his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 19.4m -8.4
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
John Konchar 14.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

High-IQ defensive rotations (+4.8 Def) kept his head above water during a rough shooting night. Even with his jumper completely abandoning him, his knack for digging down on drives and recovering out to shooters provided crucial hidden value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 14.0m -6.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0