GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 52.3m
44
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.6

A grueling, high-usage performance where massive scoring volume was heavily taxed by a barrage of forced, clanked three-pointers. He carried the offensive burden for over fifty minutes, but the sheer number of wasted perimeter possessions prevented a dominant impact score. His relentless downhill attacking kept the defense on its heels, though the shot selection from deep was undeniably costly.

Shooting
FG 14/31 (45.2%)
3PT 2/13 (15.4%)
FT 14/17 (82.4%)
Advanced
TS% 57.2%
USG% 33.6%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 52.3m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 52.3m -26.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Dominick Barlow 45.0m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Played an exhausting marathon shift where elite interior defense was undone by spacing issues. Continuing his trend of high-percentage interior finishing, he nonetheless clogged the paint by bricking multiple perimeter attempts. The defensive anchoring was superb, but his inability to stretch the floor ultimately flattened his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +10.6
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 45.0m -23.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 30.0m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Uncharacteristically passive offensively, settling for contested mid-range looks rather than bullying his way to the stripe. The lack of typical scoring dominance combined with a muted hustle rating resulted in a surprisingly neutral overall footprint. Opposing bigs successfully pushed him off his spots, preventing him from dictating the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 30.0m -15.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paul George 28.0m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.1

Generated immense value through suffocating wing defense despite a frigid shooting night. He compensated for the clanking jumpers by jumping passing lanes and blowing up pick-and-rolls at the point of attack. His veteran awareness on the defensive end completely overshadowed the fact that his scoring efficiency plummeted.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +5.8
Defense +12.2
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 28.0m -14.3
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 21.4m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Cooled off significantly from his recent scoring tear, but managed to tread water through disciplined perimeter defense. He deferred to the primary creators rather than forcing his own offense, which kept his efficiency relatively clean. It was a quiet, low-usage shift defined by staying in his lane and executing defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 21.4m -10.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
28
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.8

Delivered a spectacular two-way masterclass, punishing closeouts and burying catch-and-shoot threes at an elite clip. His aggressive off-ball movement completely warped the opposing defensive scheme, creating wide-open driving lanes. Coupling this offensive surge with relentless point-of-attack defense resulted in the most complete performance of his recent stretch.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.7m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 46.7m -24.0
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Jared McCain 28.5m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

Completely derailed the second unit's momentum with stagnant decision-making and poor finishing around the basket. His inability to create separation against physical defenders resulted in a string of empty possessions that cratered his impact score. Even decent effort on the defensive end couldn't salvage a night where he was an active offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 28.5m -14.5
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Adem Bona 22.0m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Provided excellent rim deterrence but was virtually invisible on the offensive end. His lack of touch around the basket meant the defense could completely ignore him in the half-court. Ultimately, his sturdy screen-setting and shot-altering presence were just barely offset by his offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 22.0m -11.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Looked entirely lost during his brief rotation minutes, getting consistently burned on defensive switches. Failing to convert any of his looks compounded the issue, as his defender was able to freely roam and double-team others. A highly damaging shift defined by blown assignments and zero offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.4
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 10.1m -5.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Yanked quickly after struggling to anchor the paint during a brief, ineffective stint. Opposing guards targeted his drop coverage immediately, leading to a negative defensive rating that outweighed his single converted bucket. He simply couldn't find the pace of the game in his limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 6.0m -3.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Onyeka Okongwu 47.4m
10
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.0

Brutal shot selection completely tanked his overall value, highlighted by an ill-advised barrage of missed three-pointers. While his interior defense and rim protection remained stout during a marathon shift, the wasted offensive possessions were simply too costly. He essentially played his team out of rhythm by settling for perimeter looks instead of rolling hard to the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.4m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.9
Defense +8.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 47.4m -24.2
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Johnson 45.1m
41
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.4

An absolute offensive explosion fueled a massive positive impact, heavily supported by elite defensive rotations that shut down the paint. His willingness to confidently take and make trail threes stretched the opposing frontcourt to a breaking point. This two-way dominance dictated the game's tempo and masked a relatively quiet night in the hustle categories.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 17/22 (77.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.8%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.1m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +9.1
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 45.1m -23.0
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
34
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.8

Searing perimeter shooting drove a massive box-score impact, as he consistently punished drop coverage with pull-up daggers. The sheer volume of his shot-making forced the defense into panic rotations, opening up the floor for the rest of the unit. Though his defensive metrics were relatively muted, his offensive gravity was the undeniable engine of this performance.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.4m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 44.4m -22.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 44.2m
17
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite activity levels defined his night, generating a massive hustle advantage through relentless deflections and loose ball recoveries. He smartly abandoned the three-point shot after early misses, pivoting to punishing guards in the paint with decisive cuts. That relentless motor on both ends of the floor kept the team afloat during stagnant offensive stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.2m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 44.2m -22.6
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Scoring volume spiked well above his recent averages, but defensive liabilities dragged his overall impact into the red. Solid hustle metrics were completely negated by poor perimeter containment and forced looks from beyond the arc. His inability to stay in front of his primary matchup ultimately defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 29.8m -15.3
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Barely kept his head above water, using strong perimeter defense to offset a dreadful shooting night. He struggled to find any rhythm offensively, frequently passing up open lanes to force contested jumpers. Ultimately, his willingness to fight through screens and contest shooters salvaged what would have otherwise been a highly detrimental shift.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 26.3m -13.3
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Capitalized brilliantly on a rare extended run, finishing everything around the rim to shatter his usual scoring output. His vertical spacing and disciplined rim-running created a highly efficient offensive profile, while his defensive rating showed great positional awareness. He completely changed the dynamic of the second unit by simply playing within himself and executing hard rolls.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 23.1m -11.9
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 15.2m
2
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.3

A complete non-factor offensively who actively hurt the team by missing his primary assignment of spacing the floor. Blanking on all of his perimeter looks allowed defenders to freely sag into the paint and clog driving lanes. Without his typical shooting gravity, his defensive limitations were glaringly exposed during a rough stint.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 15.2m -7.7
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Provided a crisp, stabilizing presence off the bench by knocking down timely spot-up threes. He didn't force the issue, letting the offense come to him while maintaining solid defensive positioning on the perimeter. This low-mistake, opportunistic style perfectly suited his role and yielded a highly positive net impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 14.0m -7.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 0.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Saw only a fleeting moment of garbage time at the very end of the rotation. There was zero opportunity to establish rhythm or impact the game flow. His fractional negative score is merely statistical noise from a single empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.5m -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0