GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 34.8m
23
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.3

Put on an absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, anchored by a suffocating defensive presence that completely erased the paint. Offensively, his willingness to step out and knock down trailing threes warped the opponent's frontcourt rotations. This combination of elite rim deterrence and modern floor-spacing made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +15.3
Raw total +39.2
Avg player in 34.8m -19.9
Impact +19.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 2
33
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.6

A brutal slog from beyond the arc severely suppressed the value of his high-volume scoring output. He bailed out the defense repeatedly by settling for deep, off-the-dribble contested looks rather than attacking the teeth of the coverage. The sheer volume of empty possessions nearly erased the benefits of his otherwise dynamic shot-creation.

Shooting
FG 12/26 (46.2%)
3PT 3/13 (23.1%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 40.7%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 34.4m -19.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jaylon Tyson 33.0m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Paced the secondary offense with highly efficient slashing, punishing closeouts with decisive straight-line drives. He rarely forced bad looks, taking exactly what the defensive shell conceded. This steady, mistake-free shot profile kept the offensive engine humming during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 33.0m -19.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Andre Hunter 30.1m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Clanked his way to a deeply negative rating by repeatedly short-circuiting possessions with contested, early-clock jumpers. His inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off and pack the paint against his teammates. Despite decent defensive effort, the offensive spacing issues he created were too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 30.1m -17.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Darius Garland 29.2m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-17.9

An absolute disaster class in shot selection and execution actively torpedoed the offense. He was completely out of rhythm, forcing wild floaters and bricking wide-open catch-and-shoot looks that killed multiple rallies. This massive deviation from his usual efficiency created a black hole that the starting unit could not survive.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.6%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 29.2m -16.8
Impact -17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 23.9m
3
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Elite point-of-attack defense and brilliant rotational reads were entirely undone by a frigid shooting night. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot and effectively playing five-on-four defensively. His inability to punish the sagging coverage severely cramped the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 23.9m -13.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Injected pure chaos and energy into the frontcourt, utilizing his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate deflections. He didn't force his offense, scoring opportunistically off cuts and broken plays while remaining a constant nuisance on the glass. His high-motor activity level was exactly what the second unit needed to stabilize the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 15.6m -9.0
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 15.5m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Anchored the second unit's defense with impeccable weak-side help and switchability, but gave it all back with a completely invisible offensive stint. He passed up open looks and bricked the few threes he did take, allowing his man to roam free as a free safety. The defensive brilliance just barely failed to cover up the offensive zeroes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 15.5m -8.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.3

Flipped the game's momentum by stepping out as a lethal trail big, draining timely triples that pulled the opposing center away from the rim. This unexpected floor-spacing, combined with solid positional defense, provided a massive jolt of energy off the bench. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown with ruthless efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 13.2m -7.5
Impact +8.3
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
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Looked hesitant and overwhelmed during his minutes, failing to initiate the offense with any real conviction. A lack of downhill aggression allowed the defense to aggressively pressure the passing lanes without fear of dribble penetration. He simply floated on the perimeter without applying any pressure to the defense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 10.2m -5.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 35.9m
27
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.8

A relentless parade to the free-throw line salvaged an otherwise mediocre perimeter shooting night. He weaponized his size on drives to consistently draw contact, pairing that downhill aggression with highly disruptive defensive rotations. This physical, foul-drawing pattern completely dictated the tempo when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 16/17 (94.1%)
Advanced
TS% 77.2%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 35.9m -20.7
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 35.1m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.4

Surgical shot selection defined his night, capitalizing on defensive rotations to hit at a highly efficient clip. Strong point-of-attack defense and active hands further elevated his value. He consistently made the right reads without forcing the issue within the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.4%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 35.1m -20.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 33.5m
16
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.2

Inefficient isolation attempts heavily penalized his overall rating, as he struggled to find the bottom of the net from the floor. The heavy volume of missed shots negated any positive momentum from his playmaking. His inability to generate rim pressure forced him into contested jumpers all night.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 33.5m -19.2
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sidy Cissoko 25.5m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A massive scoring spike compared to his recent struggles was overshadowed by underlying mistakes that bled value. While he finally found the bottom of the net efficiently, poor positional discipline on the weak side likely gave those points right back. His sudden burst of offensive confidence was a welcome sight despite the slightly negative net result.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 25.5m -14.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Donovan Clingan 25.1m
5
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Elite rim protection and paint deterrence anchored the interior, but his struggles to finish through contact dragged his net impact into the red. Fumbled catches and missed bunnies around the basket severely limited his offensive utility. His relentless work on the glass kept possessions alive, though the lack of touch was glaring.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 25.1m -14.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
20
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.7

Tenacious perimeter defense and high-energy closeouts kept his overall impact positive despite a clunky shooting performance. He forced the issue offensively with several contested mid-range pull-ups that tanked his efficiency. However, his willingness to do the dirty work in transition prevented his cold stretches from hurting the team.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 32.2m -18.4
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Caleb Love 27.4m
20
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

An unexpected perimeter barrage completely flipped the script on his recent scoring drought. He stretched the defense with deep, confident triples that opened up driving lanes for the entire unit. Coupled with engaged on-ball defense, this sudden offensive eruption was a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 27.4m -15.7
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 11.4m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to establish a physical presence inside, settling for perimeter looks that failed to drop. His inability to anchor the drop coverage allowed guards to turn the corner too easily. The lack of rim deterrence ultimately outweighed his minor offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 11.4m -6.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Completely vanished during his brief stint, failing to register any meaningful positive actions on either end. A lack of aggression and slow defensive processing left him exposed against quicker matchups. He essentially ran empty cardio minutes that actively hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 8.7m -4.9
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Maximized a brief rotational cameo by executing flawless defensive rotations and clogging the passing lanes. His sheer size altered several attempts at the rim, generating immediate transition opportunities. It was a textbook example of high-impact, low-usage situational minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 5.2m -3.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0