GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 41.0m
39
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.9

Blistering downhill speed shattered the opponent's point-of-attack defense all night long. His ability to consistently break the paint forced over-helps, generating high-quality looks and driving a stellar overall rating despite some forced perimeter attempts.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 41.0m -20.5
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Andre Drummond 37.9m
14
pts
18
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.7

Absolute domination of the painted area completely suffocated the opponent's interior game. By swallowing up every available defensive board and anchoring the paint, he prevented second-chance points and generated a massive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense +9.9
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 37.9m -19.0
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 37.3m
14
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.5

Poor transition defense and late closeouts severely undermined a solid offensive outing. He routinely lost his man on back-cuts during a critical third-quarter stretch, bleeding easy layups that tanked his overall net score.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 37.3m -18.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 21.2m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and disciplined rim-running drove a highly positive hustle rating. He capitalized perfectly on defensive miscommunications, finishing dump-offs with authority to maintain his streak of elite efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -34.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 21.2m -10.7
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 21.1m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

An inability to create separation against primary defenders led to a stagnant, isolation-heavy offensive performance. While his length disrupted passing lanes on defense, the sheer volume of forced, clanking jumpers severely damaged the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 37.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 21.1m -10.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.4

Elite point-of-attack defense and decisive spot-up shooting created a massive two-way footprint. By locking down the perimeter and punishing late closeouts without hesitation, he provided the ultimate 3-and-D performance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +6.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 35.6m -17.7
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Smart cutting and decisive quick-decisions out of the short roll kept the offensive machinery humming. He found the soft spots in the zone defense seamlessly, providing just enough connective tissue to stay in the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 18.9m -9.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

A complete lack of offensive rhythm derailed his stint, as he repeatedly bricked wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to clog the driving lanes and stall the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 18.0m -9.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Completely invisible during his short time on the floor, failing to register any meaningful actions. The offense bogged down with him running the point, resulting in empty possessions that dragged down his net score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 5.1m -2.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A brief and disjointed stint was marred by poor spacing and an inability to get into the flow of the offense. He was caught ball-watching on a pair of defensive possessions, leading to quick scores that pushed his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.9m -1.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 36.8m
28
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

Brutal shot selection and a heavy volume of clanked perimeter attempts completely negated his high scoring output. The sheer number of empty possessions allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, dragging his overall impact into the red despite solid defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/25 (28.0%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 36.8m -18.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Ivica Zubac 33.9m
14
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

Dominant interior positioning dictated the flow of the game and anchored a massive positive impact. His ability to secure contested rebounds and alter shots in the paint completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack during the second half.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 33.9m -17.0
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kobe Sanders 30.4m
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Perimeter aggression defined his night, as an unexpected scoring surge forced defensive rotations and opened up spacing. While his shot-making generated a strong offensive footprint, slight defensive give-backs on closeouts kept his overall net impact barely above water.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 30.4m -15.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S John Collins 27.2m
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

A noticeable dip in finishing efficiency at the rim dragged down his overall value. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups, leading to forced attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 27.2m -13.6
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 27.1m
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

Despite finding an offensive rhythm above his usual baseline, hidden negatives like poor rotational positioning cratered his net score. A tendency to over-help on drives left shooters open in the corners, bleeding points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 27.1m -13.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.8

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers short-circuited offensive momentum. Although he displayed active hands in passing lanes to boost his defensive metrics, the missed outside shots consistently sparked fast breaks the other way.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 26.5m -13.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Timely weak-side rotations and veteran positioning kept his impact in the green. A sudden resurgence in floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, perfectly illustrating his glue-guy value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 20.8m -10.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 14.0m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

A lack of mobility in drop coverage was repeatedly exploited by high pick-and-rolls during his brief stint on the floor. Unable to generate his usual offensive gravity, his inability to contest quick guards on the perimeter resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 14.0m -7.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Christie 12.0m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Floating on the perimeter without demanding defensive attention allowed opponents to play five-on-four. His complete lack of offensive involvement resulted in dead possessions, sinking his net rating despite adequate individual defense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 12.0m -6.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Chris Paul 11.2m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Defensive limitations at the point of attack were glaringly obvious during his short shift. Opposing guards easily bypassed his initial pressure, forcing the defense into scramble mode and tanking his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 11.2m -5.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0