GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 34.4m
18
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.2

Serving as an absolute terror in drop coverage, his stellar defensive positioning anchored the interior. He paired elite rim protection with highly efficient finishing around the basket, punishing mismatches on switches all night.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +11.5
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 34.4m -18.2
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
37
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+21.1

Shredded the point-of-attack defense with a relentless barrage of pull-up jumpers and aggressive rim attacks. His elite shot-making gravity warped the opposing scheme, creating driving lanes that fueled a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +32.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +38.4
Avg player in 32.6m -17.3
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Darius Garland 29.5m
8
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-13.2

Clanking multiple attempts from beyond the arc and struggling to separate from his primary defender torpedoed his offensive value. His inability to bend the defense allowed opponents to stay home on shooters, resulting in a staggering negative impact despite his passing vision.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 29.5m -15.6
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S De'Andre Hunter 29.3m
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Excellent spacing provided by his perimeter shooting was offset by empty possessions when forced to put the ball on the floor. Despite solid defensive metrics, his inability to finish through contact inside the arc kept his net impact perfectly flat.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 29.3m -15.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 22.8m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Defensive lapses erased the value of his opportunistic scoring cuts. He struggled to stay in front of his assignment on the perimeter, allowing blow-bys that compromised the defensive shell and drove his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.8m -12.1
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 22.6m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

Elite weak-side help and switchability completely salvaged an otherwise dreadful shooting performance. Even while bricking wide-open looks from deep, his constant activity and positional discipline made him a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 22.6m -12.0
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to secure defensive rebounds, allowing second-chance opportunities that bled away his value. While he finished efficiently when spoon-fed at the rim, his lack of physicality in the paint resulted in a negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 21.9m -11.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Capitalized on defensive rotations by knocking down timely spot-up looks to keep the offense humming. His steady decision-making and competent perimeter containment provided a stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 17.1m -9.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Travers 14.9m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Gritty defensive rotations and timely closeouts defined his highly effective rotational minutes. He didn't demand the ball offensively, instead focusing entirely on blowing up opposing screening actions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 14.9m -8.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

High-energy closeouts and loose ball recoveries couldn't overcome his struggles to anchor the paint defensively. Opponents consistently targeted him in the pick-and-roll, exposing his lack of vertical deterrence.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 12.5m -6.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely broke a sweat during a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation. He managed to pop for a perimeter make but offered no resistance or hustle plays to move the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAC LA Clippers
S Ivica Zubac 32.9m
33
pts
18
reb
4
ast
Impact
+24.9

Utterly dominated the interior matchup by converting high-percentage looks in the paint and overwhelming the defense. His massive overall impact was driven by relentless rim pressure and second-chance generation, masking average hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 15/22 (68.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +35.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +42.3
Avg player in 32.9m -17.4
Impact +24.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S James Harden 31.7m
19
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.1

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance severely punished his net impact. The sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed his playmaking contributions, as opposing defenders simply sagged off him to clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 31.7m -16.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S John Collins 29.9m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

An inability to finish around the rim dragged his overall value into the negative despite tremendous effort metrics. His high hustle rating reflects constant activity on the glass and in help defense, but clanking a high volume of interior looks cratered his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 29.9m -15.9
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 26.4m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.5

Defensive disruption anchored his positive impact, generating stops that fueled transition opportunities. While he missed a handful of mid-range looks, his active hands and high-level perimeter containment kept his overall value firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.2
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 26.4m -14.0
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kris Dunn 23.9m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Opportunistic shot selection and steady point-of-attack defense allowed him to post a solid positive impact in limited usage. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns for easy looks, breaking out of a recent shooting slump while maintaining active hands.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 23.9m -12.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 27.7m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Blending into the background offensively resulted in a heavily negative overall score despite decent defensive positioning. He failed to assert himself or create advantages, allowing the opposition to ignore him and overload against primary creators.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 27.7m -14.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Invisible on the hustle charts and largely bypassed in the half-court offense, his impact plummeted due to sheer passivity. Even when he knocked down a couple of spot-up looks, his inability to generate deflections or contest shots dragged down the lineup.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 25.1m -13.3
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Chris Paul 17.0m
2
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.9

Reluctance to look at the basket allowed defenders to cheat into passing lanes, suffocating the team's spacing. While he distributed the ball safely, his lack of scoring aggression resulted in stagnant possessions and a deep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 17.0m -9.1
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Brook Lopez 11.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Completely neutralized during his brief stint, offering zero rim pressure and failing to stretch the floor. The lack of interior deterrence or offensive gravity made him a liability in pick-and-roll coverage, leading to a quick hook.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -111.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 11.2m -5.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 3.5m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Relegated to a brief cameo, he managed to hit a perimeter look but offered zero resistance defensively. The lack of sustained minutes or hustle plays kept his impact score marginally below neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A missed jumper and zero secondary stats defined a forgettable garbage-time appearance. He failed to record any hustle metrics, leaving his brief stint entirely unproductive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 3.5m -1.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Scraped together a slightly positive impact by securing loose balls during his short end-of-game run. His defensive positioning compensated for an empty offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Flashed brief offensive utility by converting a look in his limited action. However, a complete lack of defensive or hustle contributions kept his overall rating hovering right around zero.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 3.5m -1.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0