GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Andre Drummond 38.0m
14
pts
24
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Total domination of the glass generated a massive possession advantage that fueled his positive impact. He relentlessly punished a smaller frontcourt by creating crucial second-chance opportunities and ending defensive possessions with authority. This breakout performance completely shattered his recent sluggish trend, providing a vital physical anchor in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 38.0m -23.0
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Tyrese Maxey 36.3m
27
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.0

A heavy reliance on high-difficulty perimeter attempts resulted in a wildly fluctuating offensive rhythm and a barely positive net score. He consistently bailed out stagnant possessions with deep, contested pull-ups, which hurt his overall efficiency despite the impressive scoring volume. However, his relentless downhill pressure in transition forced enough defensive collapses to keep his head above water.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 36.3m -21.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Quentin Grimes 34.9m
15
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

Subpar shot selection from the perimeter heavily weighed down his net rating despite commendable effort on the margins. He snapped a streak of highly efficient outings by repeatedly forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. Those empty possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities, completely erasing the value of his individual hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 34.9m -21.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Justin Edwards 32.5m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Despite providing excellent point-of-attack resistance, severe offensive limitations dragged his overall impact into the negative. Defenders routinely ignored him on the perimeter, completely bogging down the half-court spacing for the primary creators. His inability to punish those sagging coverages negated the undeniable value of his defensive hustle.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -33.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 32.5m -19.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Paul George 20.2m
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.0

A stark departure from his recent elite scoring form resulted in a surprisingly muted overall impact. Forcing contested looks from beyond the arc short-circuited several offensive possessions and allowed the defense to dictate the tempo. While his length remained disruptive on the defensive end, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips kept his net rating in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 20.2m -12.1
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
19
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.5

Masterful navigation of the middle of the floor drove a stellar net rating and a massive spike in offensive production. He consistently found the soft spots in the opposing zone, acting as a vital release valve and finishing plays with soft touch. This offensive fluidity was paired with switchable, high-energy defense that completely stalled the opponent's secondary actions.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.9
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 26.1m -15.7
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jared McCain 25.7m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Sizzling perimeter execution was completely undone by a porous defensive showing that dragged his net rating into the red. While he consistently punished late closeouts with quick-trigger mechanics, opposing guards mercilessly targeted him on the other end. The inability to navigate screens or stay in front of straight-line drives gave back every ounce of his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 25.7m -15.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Straying from his typically hyper-efficient interior diet to hoist low-percentage perimeter shots resulted in a negative overall impact. By floating on the perimeter rather than diving hard to the rim, he failed to collapse the defense or generate high-quality looks. This tactical shift neutralized his usual effectiveness as a reliable finisher in the dunker spot.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 20.1m -12.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

A disjointed rotational stint was marred by poor spacing and a failure to secure the defensive glass. He struggled to find the pace of the game, consistently arriving late on weak-side rotations. The brief appearance was a stark drop-off from his recent steady play, resulting in a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 4.0m -2.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Logged purely developmental minutes at the tail end of the contest. He barely had time to break a sweat before the final horn sounded. The statistical footprint is entirely meaningless in this context.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Inserted solely to run out the clock during the final meaningless possession. He occupied space in the paint without any opportunity to impact the actual flow of the game. A completely neutral cameo that offers zero evaluative data.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 32.5m
18
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Anchoring the interior defense drove a highly positive net rating, as he consistently deterred attempts at the rim. He broke out of a recent efficiency slump by establishing deep post position early rather than settling for contested jumpers. That interior gravity opened up the perimeter for his teammates while keeping his own impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +10.0
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 32.5m -19.7
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 21.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 31.9m
6
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-11.6

A brutal regression from the perimeter completely tanked his overall impact despite strong hustle metrics. After five straight highly efficient outings, his inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the painted area. The sheer volume of empty possessions overshadowed his relentless effort on the margins.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +7.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 31.9m -19.3
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 30.7m
8
pts
8
reb
12
ast
Impact
+0.1

Elite point-of-attack defense and steady offensive initiation kept his impact score above water despite a low-volume shooting night. He neutralized the opposing backcourt at the point of attack, funneling ball-handlers into help defense. By prioritizing ball security and high-leverage passing over his own scoring, he managed the game effectively without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 30.7m -18.6
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 29.3m
32
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.1

Elite shot selection and perimeter execution drove a dominant offensive rating during his minutes. He relentlessly attacked closeouts and capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities, punishing the defense every time they lost him in transition. That high-level scoring efficiency masked any minor defensive lapses and kept the overall impact heavily positive.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 29.3m -17.6
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 26.2m
20
pts
16
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.7

Floor-spacing from the center position fueled a massive surge in overall impact, highlighted by flawless execution from beyond the arc. He consistently punished drop coverages by popping out for clean looks, completely shifting the defensive geometry. This breakout offensive performance was perfectly complemented by his sturdy rim protection on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +46.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +24.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.2
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 26.2m -15.8
Impact +18.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
22
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.1

Masterful footwork in the mid-post generated hyper-efficient scoring, yet his overall impact flatlined due to defensive breakdowns. He consistently exploited mismatches on the block, finishing through contact with ease. However, his inability to contain dribble penetration on the other end gave back nearly all the value he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 82.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 32.9m -19.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 48.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offensive invisibility during his stint severely hampered the second unit's spacing and rhythm. He failed to make himself a threat off the ball, allowing his defender to freely roam and clog the passing lanes. While he provided adequate weak-side help defensively, it wasn't enough to overcome the dead weight on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 19.4m -11.7
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers dragged his net impact deep into the red. Continuing a brutal recent efficiency slump, his inability to threaten the defense off the dribble made him entirely one-dimensional. The lack of secondary playmaking or rim pressure meant his missed outside shots translated directly into empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 18.7m -11.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 16.5m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Breaking out of a severe offensive slump, timely back-door cuts and opportunistic scoring provided a crucial spark off the bench. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find easy looks at the rim, completely shifting his recent trajectory. Coupled with disruptive hands in the passing lanes, his two-way energy secured a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 16.5m -10.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A brief garbage-time cameo offered no runway to influence the game's outcome. He simply filled space during the final meaningless possessions without registering any actionable data. The slight negative impact is entirely negligible given the microscopic sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Managed to squeeze a quick transition bucket into a fleeting end-of-game appearance. The sample size was far too small to draw any meaningful conclusions about his rotational viability. His negligible net rating simply reflects the chaotic nature of garbage-time minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 66.7%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0