GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 28.8m
35
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+24.5

An absolute masterclass in exploiting drop coverage allowed him to dictate the pace of the entire game. His relentless downhill attacks warped the opposing defensive shell, generating an astronomical net rating that single-handedly carried the offense.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +27.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +10.5
Raw total +41.2
Avg player in 28.8m -16.7
Impact +24.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 23.7m
9
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.6

Even with his jumper failing to fall at its usual rate, relentless energy on the defensive end kept his impact highly positive. Chasing down loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs proved that his value extends far beyond pure scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 23.7m -13.7
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 20.0m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.4

Excellent rim-running and decisive cuts to the basket fueled a massive surge in his offensive production. He paired this interior efficiency with disciplined verticality at the rim, anchoring the second unit's defense during a crucial stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 20.0m -11.5
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Paul George 17.7m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

A noticeable lack of aggression limited his usual offensive dominance, settling into a secondary role rather than hunting his own shot. He salvaged a slightly positive impact by utilizing his length to jump passing lanes and generate deflections.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 17.7m -10.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andre Drummond 17.2m
12
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.9

Dominating the glass and converting second-chance opportunities completely shifted the momentum of the interior battle. His sheer physical presence overwhelmed smaller defenders in the paint, driving a massive spike in his usual offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 17.2m -9.9
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Getting caught out of position in transition defense consistently bled points during his heavy workload. Even though he showed flashes of active hands in the half-court, bricking open corner looks prevented him from offsetting the damage on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 33.0m -19.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 25.2m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.0

A sudden burst of offensive confidence saw him dissecting closeouts with sharp drives to the rim. Unfortunately, his positive scoring contributions were neutralized by getting repeatedly targeted and bullied on switches by larger wings.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +71.8
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 25.2m -14.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Crashing the offensive glass with reckless abandon generated extra possessions, significantly boosting his usual scoring output. However, slow lateral footwork on the perimeter allowed opposing guards to blow by him, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 24.3m -14.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Adem Bona 21.7m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Setting bone-crushing screens and rolling with purpose opened up critical driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. His high-motor activity in the dunker spot ensured the offense kept humming without him needing to demand touches.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +54.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 21.7m -12.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Eric Gordon 12.8m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

A complete lack of burst off the dribble relegated him to a static floor-spacing role that the defense easily ignored. Forcing a couple of contested, late-clock heaves only exacerbated a highly ineffective stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 12.8m -7.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Struggling to navigate through screens left him trailing plays and compromising the defensive shell. He was entirely marginalized on offense during his brief appearance, failing to register any meaningful pressure on the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 7.8m -4.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Forcing contested shots in the paint completely derailed the offense during his short time on the floor. His inability to finish through contact resulted in a string of empty possessions that immediately handed momentum back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 7.8m -4.5
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 33.4m
11
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.3

Despite generating significant value through active defensive rotations and loose ball recoveries, his overall impact sank into the negative. A high volume of empty possessions stemming from poor perimeter shot selection ultimately negated his gritty defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 33.4m -19.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.3

Interior dominance defined his stint on the floor, as he consistently sealed off defenders to create high-percentage looks. His massive defensive rating boost came from deterring drives at the rim, proving his recent surge in efficiency is translating to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.6
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 26.3m -15.2
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 1
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.8m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

Passive offensive involvement and an inability to convert in traffic resulted in a massive drop-off from his usual production. While his on-ball defensive pressure remained solid, the lack of scoring gravity severely cramped the floor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 24.8m -14.2
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

His recent streak of hyper-efficient finishing came to a halt, limiting his offensive ceiling in this matchup. However, he managed to keep his head above water by relying on strong weak-side defensive positioning to stabilize his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 23.9m -13.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S CJ McCollum 23.9m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.6

A disastrous night from beyond the arc completely torpedoed his offensive value. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint led to a string of empty trips that allowed the opposition to build momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 23.9m -13.9
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Riley 26.2m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Elite shot selection and perfect execution from deep generated a stellar box score impact. Despite the hyper-efficient scoring, his overall net rating was diluted by a few missed defensive assignments during a late-game run by the opposing bench.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 26.2m -15.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.7

Forcing the issue against set defenses resulted in a barrage of clanked jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities. This erratic shot selection cratered his overall impact rating, completely overshadowing a few decent hustle plays in the backcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 24.7m -14.2
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Capitalizing on pick-and-pop mismatches allowed him to score efficiently and exceed his usual baseline. Yet, his overall net rating remained surprisingly muted due to sluggish transition defense that gave away easy points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 66.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -63.3
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 21.7m -12.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Whitmore 16.2m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Tunnel vision on drives and a refusal to move the ball out of double-teams led to a highly inefficient offensive showing. Wasting possessions on contested mid-range looks actively harmed the team's offensive flow during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -51.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 16.2m -9.4
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Making the most of a short stint, he provided an immediate spark by attacking closeouts with precision. His disciplined point-of-attack defense also disrupted the opposing guards' rhythm, driving a highly efficient plus-minus in under a quarter of action.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 11.0m -6.3
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Operating strictly within his role, he maintained his recent streak of flawless finishing by only taking what the defense conceded. His brief appearance was defined by sturdy post defense rather than offensive volume, resulting in a neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +88.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 7.8m -4.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0