GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Jaylon Tyson 32.9m
24
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

An absolute masterclass in shot selection propelled a massive breakout game, far exceeding his recent offensive struggles. He surgically dismantled the defense with high-percentage looks inside the arc, driving a stellar positive impact.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 32.9m -20.0
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 32.3m
17
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.4

Elite interior presence defined this performance, combining high-level rim protection with dominant rebounding. He extended his streak of hyper-efficient shooting by feasting on drop coverage and converting second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 32.3m -19.6
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
28
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.9

Overcame a cold night from three-point range by relentlessly attacking the paint and creating for others. His surprising defensive engagement (+6.8) at the point of attack sealed a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 64.1%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 31.8m -19.3
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S De'Andre Hunter 20.6m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Efficient interior finishing was offset by struggles from beyond the arc, slightly capping his offensive ceiling. While his on-ball defense was solid, a lack of secondary playmaking kept his net impact just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 20.6m -12.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nae'Qwan Tomlin 18.4m
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Shattered his recent scoring slump by attacking closeouts and finishing aggressively in the paint. This sudden burst of offensive confidence, paired with active hands on defense, translated into a highly effective rotation shift.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 18.4m -11.2
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 29.2m
12
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.1

Snapped out of a shooting funk by knocking down timely perimeter looks and crashing the glass with purpose. His switchability on defense and high-energy hustle plays perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 29.2m -17.7
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Exploded out of nowhere to deliver a massive two-way spark, completely abandoning his recent passive tendencies. Relentless hustle (+5.5) and suffocating perimeter defense (+7.0) drove a game-changing impact off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +38.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 23.9m -14.6
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 22.4m
2
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.4

Generational defensive metrics (+10.0) nearly salvaged a completely passive offensive outing. He refused to look for his own shot, but his elite anticipation in the passing lanes and connective playmaking kept the unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +10.0
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 22.4m -13.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Provided a steady, if unspectacular, interior presence that resulted in a perfectly neutral impact score. He converted his few looks around the basket efficiently but failed to dominate the glass against smaller matchups.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 15.7m -9.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Travers 10.5m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, bleeding value through poor positioning and missed rotations. His inability to stretch the floor or create advantages off the dribble stalled the offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 10.5m -6.4
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Garbage-time minutes yielded a slightly negative impact due to a couple of blown defensive assignments (-1.5). He managed to convert a quick bucket in transition, but the sample size was too small to draw meaningful conclusions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.5
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Strong defensive metrics (+8.2) kept his overall impact near neutral despite a slight dip in his usual offensive volume. He spaced the floor effectively from deep, but a lack of secondary playmaking limited his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.2
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 34.6m -21.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 32.8m
25
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.3

High-usage playmaking and relentless rim pressure generated excellent offensive flow, doubling his recent scoring average. Despite the heavy offensive load, his perimeter efficiency was spotty, leaving his net impact barely above water.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 32.8m -19.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Devin Vassell 29.9m
28
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

A relentless perimeter barrage drove a massive box score surge, snapping him out of a recent offensive lull. The scoring volume was elite, though subpar point-of-attack defense prevented his overall impact score from climbing even higher.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 29.9m -18.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 28.6m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Impact cratered (-8.1) due to a passive offensive approach that failed to punish mismatches. While his defensive positioning was adequate, his inability to generate consistent rim pressure or draw fouls dragged down the starting unit's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 28.6m -17.3
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bismack Biyombo 10.4m
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Capitalized on limited minutes by finishing his rare touches around the basket to break a recent scoring slump. However, his overall impact remained negative (-2.0) due to a lack of rim protection and rebounding presence during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 10.4m -6.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Continued a highly efficient finishing streak by picking his spots perfectly around the basket. His constant motor on the glass and timely cuts fueled a positive impact score, easily doubling his recent scoring output without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 24.9m -15.1
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Physical drives and excellent defensive rotations (+6.1) anchored a steady two-way performance. He supplemented his standard scoring diet with high-energy hustle plays, keeping his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 24.8m -15.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Dylan Harper 23.2m
3
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-18.6

A catastrophic shooting night (-18.6 impact) completely derailed the offense, snapping a five-game streak of high-efficiency scoring. He forced contested jumpers early and never found a rhythm, bleeding value on every empty possession.

Shooting
FG 1/11 (9.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 11.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -7.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total -4.5
Avg player in 23.2m -14.1
Impact -18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.0

Maximized a short burst of playing time with decisive perimeter shooting and crisp ball movement. This quick-strike efficiency provided a massive spark off the bench, driving a highly positive impact (+5.0) in under ten minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 9.9m -6.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a brief rotation stint, forcing a few low-percentage looks. Defensive lapses and an inability to secure contested rebounds further depressed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 9.1m -5.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Played strictly within his role during a brief appearance, offering solid perimeter containment (+2.8 defense) to balance the ledger. He knocked down his only open look from deep, resulting in a perfectly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 6.0m -3.7
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A completely invisible offensive shift dragged down his overall value. He operated purely as a passive screener, failing to register a single shot attempt and offering minimal resistance in the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +49.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 5.8m -3.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0