GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 38.7m
27
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.9

Total dominance in the pick-and-roll and exceptional touch around the basket yielded a massive analytical footprint. He consistently punished switches by sealing smaller defenders deep in the paint before the help could arrive. Pairing this offensive clinic with suffocating rim protection resulted in a masterclass performance.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +29.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.4
Raw total +42.8
Avg player in 38.7m -21.9
Impact +20.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.1

Over-dribbling in late-clock situations bogged down the offensive machinery and led to empty possessions. While his individual defensive metrics remained strong, his tendency to force low-percentage isolation looks allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game. The resulting shift in momentum ultimately negated his defensive hustle.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 38.7m -21.8
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaylon Tyson 34.1m
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Unrelenting confidence from beyond the arc stretched the defense thin, even if the overall efficiency was slightly erratic. He consistently took the right shots within the offensive flow, forcing hard closeouts that opened up secondary actions. Strong point-of-attack defense ensured his high-volume shooting night translated to a net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 34.1m -19.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Darius Garland 31.4m
21
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.9

Getting caught on screens defensively created consistent mismatch opportunities that the opposition ruthlessly exploited. His offensive creation was sharp, but defensive miscommunications at the point of attack bled points the other way. This constant trading of baskets ultimately resulted in a slight negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 31.4m -17.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S De'Andre Hunter 26.6m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.8

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock severely damaged offensive momentum. His inability to punish closeouts off the bounce resulted in stagnant, unproductive possessions. Despite adequate defensive positioning, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips cratered his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -59.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 26.6m -15.0
Impact -13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Over-helping on defensive drives left shooters wide open on the perimeter, directly contributing to opposing runs. Even with solid energy plays around the glass, his lack of spatial awareness in the half-court defense was costly. The resulting breakdown in team defensive integrity overshadowed his efficient interior finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 22.4m -12.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 20.3m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

A complete inability to contain dribble penetration from the wing forced the entire defense into constant rotation. Offensively, passing up semi-contested looks bogged down the ball movement and stalled out several sets. Being a half-step slow on both ends of the floor resulted in a severely damaging stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 20.3m -11.5
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

Decisive shot-making against scrambled defenses immediately tilted the math in his team's favor. He read the floor perfectly in secondary transition, either pulling up in rhythm or keeping the ball moving to the open man. This burst of high-quality decision-making easily masked a few minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +51.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 11.0m -6.2
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Pushing the pace off missed shots injected immediate life into the second unit's transition attack. He navigated screens beautifully on defense, blowing up several dribble hand-off actions before they could materialize. This steady, mistake-free execution provided a highly effective spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 10.8m -6.1
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing guards to walk right into comfortable pull-up jumpers. He failed to establish any physical presence in the paint, rendering his brief rotation minutes largely ineffective. The lack of rim deterrence made him an easy target during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 6.0m -3.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jordan Walsh 38.1m
14
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Relentless energy on the margins kept his impact in the green during a massive spike in offensive production. He capitalized on broken plays and transition opportunities rather than forcing half-court actions. This high-motor approach perfectly complemented the primary creators while masking occasional spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 38.1m -21.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jaylen Brown 37.7m
19
pts
12
reb
11
ast
Impact
-5.5

Forced isolation sequences and heavily contested mid-range jumpers cratered his offensive efficiency. While his on-ball defensive pressure remained elite, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions gave the opponent too many transition opportunities. A dramatic regression from his recent scoring tear ultimately dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 12/16 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.3
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 37.7m -21.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Sam Hauser 35.2m
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

A stark drop in offensive aggressiveness severely limited his overall value despite solid defensive metrics. Passing up open looks on the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. His reluctance to let it fly from deep broke his recent hot streak and tanked his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 35.2m -19.8
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
42
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.4

Exceptional shot selection and a lightning-quick release against drop coverage fueled an astronomical box score impact. He repeatedly punished defensive miscommunications by hunting high-value looks early in the shot clock. This relentless offensive barrage completely broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 15/22 (68.2%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +33.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +35.7
Avg player in 30.7m -17.3
Impact +18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Xavier Tillman 29.8m
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.0

Elite rim deterrence and exceptional rotational awareness drove a massive positive defensive score. He completely neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll game by hedging hard and recovering flawlessly. Even with a slew of clanked perimeter attempts, his sheer physicality in the paint dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +13.0
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 29.8m -16.8
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Capitalizing on defensive rotations allowed him to find clean driving lanes when his outside shot wasn't falling. He made quick, decisive reads out of the pick-and-roll to maintain offensive flow. This steady rim pressure generated enough gravity to keep his overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 27.1m -15.2
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Getting continually targeted in isolation sequences severely damaged his overall impact despite decent offensive efficiency. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him on switches, forcing defensive collapses and open kick-outs. His inability to stay in front of quicker assignments negated any value he provided on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.9
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 15.1m -8.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Minott 12.7m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Bricking several wide-open corner looks completely derailed the team's spacing during his minutes. While his weak-side rim protection was a bright spot, the total lack of offensive threat allowed defenders to freely roam the paint. The stark drop-off from his recent scoring consistency was a major anchor on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 12.7m -7.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Active hands in passing lanes and disciplined closeouts generated a modest positive return in limited action. He didn't force any actions offensively, simply taking what the defense conceded within the flow of the system. This low-mistake approach provided exactly what was needed from the end of the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -54.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 7.4m -4.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Complete offensive passivity during a brief rotation stint resulted in a negative net rating. Failing to command any attention in the dunker spot allowed the defense to play five-on-four against the perimeter handlers. He simply existed on the floor without altering the geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 6.3m -3.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0