GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 36.0m
14
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.6

Offensive hesitancy and a tendency to clog the spacing completely derailed his team's half-court execution. Despite contesting shots well at the rim, he was repeatedly stripped in traffic when trying to operate out of the post. The resulting live-ball turnovers fueled a devastating opponent transition attack that tanked his rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 36.0m -17.6
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
37
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.4

Picked apart the opposing pick-and-roll coverage with surgical precision, generating high-quality looks at will. Whenever the defense blitzed, he made the right read to keep the offensive engine humming at peak efficiency. This masterful blend of aggressive scoring and flawless decision-making resulted in a dominant overall impact.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +28.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 35.8m -17.5
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 27.9m
20
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Broke the game wide open by hunting transition threes and punishing defenders who went under screens. His constant off-ball motion exhausted his primary matchup and warped the entire defensive shell. This elite shot-making efficiency translated directly into a massive surge in net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 27.9m -13.7
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S De'Andre Hunter 25.6m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

A complete lack of secondary effort and loose-ball pursuit severely damaged his overall value on the floor. He was repeatedly late navigating through off-ball screens, forcing teammates into disadvantageous rotation scrambles. This sluggishness on the margins turned an otherwise average shooting night into a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +3.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 25.6m -12.5
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 24.8m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt by dominating the restricted area and securing crucial 50/50 balls. His ability to seal defenders early in the shot clock created high-percentage looks and collapsed the defense. This relentless interior physicality was the primary driver behind his stellar positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 24.8m -12.2
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Dean Wade 27.5m
5
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Proved that scoring volume is entirely optional when you execute defensive coverages this flawlessly. He blew up multiple dribble hand-offs and consistently boxed out larger bigs to secure critical defensive stops. His massive positive rating was built entirely on doing the dirty work that doesn't show up in a traditional box score.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +10.5
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 27.5m -13.5
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 23.1m
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.4

Settled for contested perimeter jumpers early in the clock, short-circuiting the offense and allowing the defense to reset. While his point-of-attack defense remained stout, his inability to bend the defense off the dribble made the unit far too predictable. The negative impact score reflects how much his offensive stagnation hurt the team's overall flow.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 23.1m -11.2
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Capitalized on every rotation mistake by the defense, slashing to the rim with purpose and finishing through contact. He brought a sudden jolt of energy to the second unit, applying relentless ball pressure that disrupted the opponent's timing. This hyper-efficient, two-way spark plug performance dramatically swung the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 20.1m -9.9
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Looked lost navigating the offensive spacing, often drifting into areas that clogged driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. Defensively, he bit on multiple pump fakes, leading to rotational breakdowns and easy opponent scores. These subtle but costly positional errors dragged his overall impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 12.2m -5.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Struggled to anchor the pick-and-roll defense during a brief and disjointed stint on the floor. He was consistently a half-step late on his closeouts, giving up driving angles that compromised the weak-side helpers. The coaching staff quickly pivoted away from him after he failed to establish any interior presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 7.1m -3.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 40.5m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

A heavy reliance on perimeter spotting up masked underlying issues with point-of-attack defense and costly fouls. Whenever he was forced to put the ball on the floor, the resulting stalled possessions cratered his overall net rating. His floor-spacing value was ultimately negated by being targeted on defensive switches.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 40.5m -19.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 37.2m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Elite rim protection and flawless weak-side help rotations fueled a massive defensive impact score. Offensively, he punished drop coverages by stepping out and burying nearly every perimeter look he took. This two-way versatility completely dictated the terms of engagement in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +11.7
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 37.2m -18.2
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 28.8m
24
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.6

High-volume gunning and forced attempts in traffic severely depressed his overall impact score despite the scoring outburst. He settled for heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, allowing the defense to easily leak out in transition. The raw production was entirely offset by the sheer number of empty possessions he generated.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 37.7%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 28.8m -14.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyle Kuzma 24.1m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Inefficient shot selection from the midrange severely hampered his offensive rhythm, dragging down an otherwise decent hustle showing. He struggled to create separation against primary defenders, leading to forced looks late in the clock. His overall negative impact stems directly from these empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 24.1m -11.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.7

Despite a heavily restricted minute load, he dominated the paint with sheer physical force and decisive downhill drives. His defensive rotations were crisp, shutting off driving lanes and bolstering his overall positive impact. The limited court time was the only thing preventing a massive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 45.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 13.0m -6.5
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy layups that tanked his overall rating. While his perimeter stroke was functional, his lack of resistance at the point of attack allowed guards to easily compromise the defensive shell. The negative impact reflects a performance where he gave back every point he produced.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 31.4m -15.4
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 26.7m
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Anchored the second unit with disciplined positional defense and relentless activity on the glass. Even with his offensive touches reduced, he found ways to contribute by setting bone-crushing screens and altering shots in the paint. This gritty, low-usage role perfectly maximized his positive influence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 26.7m -13.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cole Anthony 21.5m
4
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.1

Struggled mightily to generate any dribble penetration, resulting in stagnant offensive sets and a steep negative impact. His inability to finish through contact at the rim led to run-outs for the opposition. Even a solid effort in loose-ball situations couldn't salvage a disastrous playmaking stint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 21.5m -10.6
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jericho Sims 11.5m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Provided a stabilizing, if unspectacular, presence in the paint during his brief rotation minutes. He executed his drop-coverage assignments adequately but failed to generate any vertical gravity as a roll man. Ultimately, he merely held the line without tilting the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 11.5m -5.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by getting caught flat-footed on defensive closeouts. He failed to establish any rhythm in the half-court, rushing his perimeter attempts and breaking the offensive flow. The coaching staff pulled him quickly after he became a glaring target in isolation sets.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 5.2m -2.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0