GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 38.5m
24
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+9.0

Surgical precision from beyond the arc and elite shot selection completely dismantled the opposing defense. Masterfully dictated the pace, using his shooting gravity to open up passing lanes and minimize turnovers. Active hands in the passing lanes fueled transition opportunities, capping off a stellar two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.3
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 38.5m -21.9
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S VJ Edgecombe 37.1m
21
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

High-volume missed shots nearly negated a phenomenal defensive performance that kept his primary matchup in a straightjacket. The sheer volume of offensive misfires and questionable shot selection prevented his elite hustle from blowing the game open. If he had reined in his perimeter attempts, his two-way impact would have been staggering.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.1
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 37.1m -21.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 4
S Andre Drummond 34.0m
10
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Heavy feet on the perimeter allowed guards to easily exploit him in pick-and-roll coverages, bleeding points defensively. Despite a massive uptick in scoring and dominant hustle plays on the glass, his sluggish lateral movement forced the defense into constant rotation. The raw production masked how often his defensive lapses led to wide-open jumpers at the top of the key.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.9
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 34.0m -19.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Justin Edwards 22.6m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Struggled to find a rhythm offensively, with poor shot selection derailing possession momentum and fueling opponent run-outs. A high volume of missed shots and an inability to space the floor allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint. Needs to eliminate costly live-ball turnovers to avoid being a negative asset when his jumper isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 22.6m -13.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 17.3m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Defensive positioning was frequently a step slow, leading to foul costs that compromised the team's entire scheme. Failed to capitalize on his recent hot streak, looking hesitant around the basket and racking up missed shots in traffic. The lack of rim deterrence ultimately outweighed his modest offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 17.3m -9.8
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Confident perimeter shooting provided a crucial scoring punch, but his overall impact was muted by foul costs on the defensive end. The hot shooting kept the offense humming, yet he gave up nearly as much ground by getting caught on screens. A failure to secure long rebounds also extended several opponent possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 31.9m -18.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Relentless hustle plays on the offensive glass provided a massive physical boost to the second unit's frontcourt. Capitalized on dump-off passes and loose balls, exhibiting great shot selection without needing plays specifically called for him. His bruising interior presence set a tone that the opponent simply struggled to match.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 23.2m -13.2
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

A lack of physicality on the interior compounded a quiet offensive night, allowing the opposition to generate back-breaking second-chance opportunities. Failed to make his presence felt through hustle plays, often arriving late to contest shots at the rim. The efficient shooting on low volume wasn't nearly enough to offset his passive defensive approach.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 21.5m -12.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jared McCain 13.9m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

A barrage of missed shots and poor shot selection plagued his brief time on the floor, bogging down the team's spacing. Unable to find the range from deep, his offensive struggles allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him and crowd the driving lanes. Lacked the point-of-attack defensive impact necessary to justify his inefficient offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 13.9m -8.0
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
TOR Toronto Raptors
18
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.7

Relentless point-of-attack defense and high-energy hustle plays defined his stellar two-way impact. Disruptive hands and constant off-ball motion generated crucial extra possessions, easily offsetting a few missed shots from deep. Pushing the pace off opponent turnovers allowed him to maximize the value of his floor time.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +6.5
Defense +9.4
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 38.5m -21.8
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 36.0m
16
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.5

Inefficient shot selection and a high volume of missed shots from the perimeter severely dragged down his overall value despite stout rim protection. Forcing the issue in isolation sets repeatedly stalled the offense and fueled opponent transition opportunities. A heavy diet of contested mid-range looks prevented him from translating defensive stops into positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 36.0m -20.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S RJ Barrett 33.9m
22
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

A steady diet of downhill attacks kept the offense afloat, forcing defensive collapses that opened up the perimeter. While his scoring punch was crucial, occasional live-ball turnovers in transition limited his net positive influence. His ability to draw fouls on aggressive drives provided a stabilizing baseline for his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 33.9m -19.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jakob Poeltl 32.8m
19
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.9

Absolute dominance in the paint anchored the team on both ends of the floor, driving a massive positive impact. Consistent interior contests and disciplined drop coverage completely neutralized the opponent's driving lanes all night. Flawless shot selection around the basket continued his highly efficient streak of offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 32.8m -18.7
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Ingram 31.1m
22
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Scoring volume masked significant defensive bleeding on the perimeter, dragging his overall impact into the red. Poor rotational awareness and costly foul trouble ultimately gave back more value than his efficient shooting generated. The sheer number of blow-by drives allowed completely compromised the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.7
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 31.1m -17.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Jamal Shead 19.9m
0
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.5

Offensive invisibility severely handicapped his lineup, allowing defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the paint. While he provided adequate hustle plays, the complete lack of a scoring threat stalled several half-court sets. Passing up open looks directly disrupted the team's rhythm and tanked his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 19.9m -11.4
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Smart positional defense and active weak-side hustle plays helped stabilize the second unit's frontcourt. Though his scoring output dropped significantly from recent trends, his willingness to execute defensive schemes without demanding touches kept his value in the green. Setting bruising screens freed up the guards and facilitated clean offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 15.2m -8.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.2

Sparkplug minutes off the bench completely shifted the game's momentum through decisive reads and flawless shot selection. Blistering perimeter efficiency was perfectly paired with locked-in defensive rotations that suffocated opposing guards. Maximized every second of his floor time by avoiding empty possessions and making the extra pass.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 14.6m -8.3
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 14.5m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Broke out of a recent slump by focusing entirely on high-effort hustle plays and critical loose ball recoveries. Surprisingly stout perimeter contests disrupted the opponent's rhythm, proving he can positively impact the game even when dealing with missed shots. His constant off-ball movement created essential gravity that opened driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 14.5m -8.2
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brief, ineffective stint characterized by poor shot selection and missed defensive assignments out of the corner. Failed to find the rhythm of the game during his limited action, giving up easy looks due to late closeouts. The quick trigger on contested jumpers resulted in empty trips that quickly earned him a seat on the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
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