GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 35.7m
18
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.3

Forcing the issue in the high post resulted in multiple live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition game. The heavy penalty from missed perimeter shots and sloppy passing completely overshadowed his interior presence.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/10 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 35.7m -17.9
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Bogged down the offense with late-clock hero ball, firing heavily contested triples instead of keeping the defense in rotation. The sheer volume of missed perimeter shots and forced isolation plays wiped out his positive defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 34.1m -17.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S De'Andre Hunter 30.5m
25
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Stretched the floor beautifully from the corners, though his impact was slightly muted by getting beat off the dribble in isolation. High hustle metrics point to active closeouts, even if his lateral quickness was exposed on switches.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.1%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 30.5m -15.4
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 28.3m
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided sturdy drop-coverage rim protection, yet struggled to finish through contact on the offensive glass. Missed opportunities in the restricted area kept his overall impact muted despite an excellent defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 28.3m -14.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nae'Qwan Tomlin 19.6m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

High-energy closeouts and offensive rebounding kept him afloat despite a glaring inability to connect from the perimeter. Poor shot selection from deep dragged down what was otherwise a highly active, disruptive performance.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 19.6m -10.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 26.7m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Provided solid weak-side help defense, but his hesitation to shoot when open disrupted the offensive rhythm and led to forced late-clock attempts. Bricklaying from the perimeter and poorly timed fouls dragged his rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 26.7m -13.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.5

Controlled the tempo masterfully as the backup initiator, consistently finding the roll man while avoiding risky passes. Excellent hustle and mistake-free playmaking drove a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 25.8m -12.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 25.0m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Excellent screen navigation and perimeter containment were overshadowed by a severe cold streak from beyond the arc. The defensive metrics shine, but the inability to punish defenders for going under screens crippled his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.9
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 25.0m -12.6
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Showed flashes of competent connective passing but ultimately played too passively against aggressive perimeter pressure. A lack of offensive aggression and minor defensive miscommunications resulted in a slightly negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 10.4m -5.2
Impact -0.4
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
-2.9

Immediately targeted in the pick-and-roll upon checking in, surrendering easy downhill angles before being subbed out. Defensive liabilities and empty offensive trips defined a highly damaging three-minute stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 40.3m
12
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.3

Completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow with relentless ball pressure and passing lane jumps, driving an elite defensive rating. While his finishing at the rim was inconsistent, his point-of-attack disruption defined the game.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +11.2
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 40.3m -20.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 38.0m
28
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.0

Pick-and-roll mastery and physical rim deterrence drove a massive positive rating. His elite hustle metrics reflect a constant willingness to set bruising screens and contest shots well outside his primary area.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 38.0m -19.1
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Kevin Durant 36.5m
20
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.7

Settling for highly contested midrange pull-ups against aggressive double-teams resulted in empty possessions and a brutal negative impact. The sheer volume of missed jumpers dragged down the offense, neutralizing any defensive value he provided.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 36.5m -18.2
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
14
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A steep drop from his raw production to his neutral overall impact suggests significant turnover issues or poorly timed fouls. He successfully stretched the floor, but sloppy ball-handling on closeouts erased the value of his perimeter gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 30.8m -15.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Steven Adams 28.0m
6
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Offensive spacing suffered due to a lack of shooting gravity, and multiple moving screens or offensive fouls compounded the negative impact. The physical toll he takes on opponents was entirely offset by empty possessions and missed bunnies in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 28.0m -14.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Capitalized on weak-side closeouts and maintained excellent floor spacing during his rotation minutes. High hustle scores indicate a knack for recovering loose balls and executing smart, timely defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 22.9m -11.5
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.8

Punished defensive breakdowns as a spot-up threat and orchestrated the second unit flawlessly without turning the ball over. Elite shot quality and mistake-free decision-making fueled a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 19.3m -9.6
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 13.9m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Anchored the paint effectively during a brief second-quarter stint, altering multiple shots at the summit. His value came entirely from vertical spacing and sturdy rim protection that deterred downhill drivers.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 13.9m -7.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Failed to provide a spark off the bench, frequently biting on pump fakes and compromising the defensive shell. Empty offensive trips and poor positioning quickly tanked his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +56.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 8.1m -4.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A brief, chaotic stint defined by a missed rotation that immediately led to an open corner three. Quick fouls and blown coverages kept him from establishing any rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.1m -1.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0