GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

A barrage of off-the-dribble perimeter daggers broke the opponent's drop coverage and spiked his offensive metrics. Despite the heavy scoring load, defensive lapses in transition and a high volume of missed interior looks muted his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 11/26 (42.3%)
3PT 7/14 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 37.2m -17.6
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 35.1m
18
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Erasing shots at the rim and seamlessly switching onto guards fueled a dominant defensive rating (+9.5). While an uncharacteristic reliance on perimeter jumpers dragged down his efficiency, his sheer physical presence dictated the terms of the half-court battle.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.5
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 35.1m -16.7
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 34.1m
11
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Relentless pursuit of long rebounds and loose balls generated critical extra possessions. However, a handful of ill-advised transition attacks and defensive miscommunications kept his net impact hovering right at neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 34.1m -16.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Andre Hunter 33.3m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.0

Exceptional hustle numbers could not mask the damage caused by forced, contested mid-range pull-ups. His inability to keep his primary assignment in front of him compounded the offensive struggles, leading to a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +5.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 33.3m -15.8
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Darius Garland 32.0m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Point-of-attack tenacity and active hands in the passing lanes drove a surprisingly robust defensive impact (+7.5). He struggled to find his rhythm from deep, but his constant motion and secondary playmaking kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense +7.5
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 32.0m -15.2
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Dean Wade 19.4m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Passing up semi-contested looks disrupted the flow of the offense and allowed the defense to reset. While his weak-side rotations were fundamentally sound, his inability to punish closeouts made him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 19.4m -9.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

An absolute magnet for the ball off the glass, generating crucial second-chance opportunities through sheer physical exertion. His elite rim deterrence (+7.3) more than compensated for a rushed, unpolished approach on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 16.1m -7.7
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Hesitancy to attack the paint allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. This lack of offensive threat stalled out second-unit possessions and resulted in a noticeable negative swing during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 15.2m -7.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Drifting to the perimeter for low-percentage trail threes completely neutralized his interior size advantage. The resulting empty possessions fueled opponent run-outs, negating his otherwise solid rim-protection efforts.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 12.4m -6.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Provided a brief burst of connective passing and positional awareness during a short rotation stint. Kept the ball moving without forcing the issue, resulting in a modest but positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 5.3m -2.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Quinten Post 31.9m
12
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Elite rim deterrence and active help defense (+9.7) anchored his positive overall rating. However, settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers capped his ceiling and prevented a true breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.7
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 31.9m -15.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 22.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Pat Spencer 29.5m
19
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.4

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration generated exceptionally high-quality looks for both himself and teammates. His decisive downhill attacks punished drop coverages repeatedly, driving a massive +18.1 box impact.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 29.5m -14.0
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Buddy Hield 26.4m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Snapping out of a brutal scoring slump, his perimeter gravity completely altered the opponent's defensive shell. Timely weak-side closeouts (+5.1 defensive impact) showed a two-way engagement that has been missing in recent weeks.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 26.4m -12.6
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.6

Impact plummeted due to severe tunnel vision and forced attempts at the rim against set defenses. This erratic shot selection short-circuited offensive momentum and fueled a massive negative swing (-10.6 overall).

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 21.5m -10.3
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Will Richard 20.6m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Strong defensive rotations (+4.2) couldn't salvage a largely invisible offensive stint. He passed up open looks and failed to stretch the floor, bogging down the second-unit spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 20.6m -9.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Elite ball pressure and passing-lane disruption (+8.3 defense) were completely undone by offensive zero-gravity. Opponents blatantly sagged off him on the perimeter, which clogged the paint and stalled out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 26.7m -12.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Gui Santos 26.5m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Aggressive point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's primary actions and salvaged his overall rating. His recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring cooled off, but his willingness to take charges and fight through screens maintained his floor presence.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.5
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 26.5m -12.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 17.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Operating primarily as a connector rather than a primary scorer, his value came through quick ball reversals and positional rebounding. While his overall volume dipped significantly from his recent tear, his disciplined closeouts kept his defensive metrics firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 21.1m -9.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Moses Moody 19.7m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Outstanding off-ball defensive awareness (+4.1) compensated for a quiet night on the other end. He willingly took a backseat in the offensive hierarchy, focusing instead on denying entry passes and blowing up dribble hand-offs.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 19.7m -9.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Vertical spacing and relentless screening angles unlocked the half-court offense during his short stint. He consistently beat his man to his spots on defensive rotations, maximizing his value in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +46.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 16.1m -7.6
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0