GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 38.8m
28
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+9.5

Relentless two-way energy drove a superb +9.5 impact, highlighted by off-the-charts hustle metrics (+7.5) and disruptive perimeter defense (+8.3). His aggressive downhill attacks and timely outside shooting completely overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +7.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 38.8m -19.8
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S VJ Edgecombe 37.8m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

Defensive breakdowns (-1.4) and inefficient scoring attempts combined to produce a poor -7.5 net rating. Though he found his typical scoring volume, the defensive concessions and empty offensive trips outweighed his bucket-getting.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.4
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 37.8m -19.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paul George 32.1m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

A sharp drop in offensive aggression resulted in a negative overall impact (-2.9), as he failed to generate his usual perimeter gravity. While his defensive positioning (+3.8) remained solid, the lack of scoring punch severely limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 32.1m -16.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 30.3m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

An absolutely catastrophic shooting night destroyed his offensive value and pushed his total impact into the red (-1.3). Elite rim protection (+5.9) prevented a total disaster, but forcing bad perimeter looks severely damaged the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/21 (19.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.6%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 30.3m -15.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 23.9m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Snapping a streak of highly efficient performances, missed interior looks dragged his net score slightly into the negative (-0.9). He supplemented the poor shooting with active hustle (+3.1), but the wasted offensive possessions ultimately capped his value.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 23.9m -12.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Cold perimeter shooting threatened to sink his value, but excellent defensive execution (+4.0) kept his head above water (+0.8). He made up for the snapped efficiency streak by generating crucial hustle plays (+3.3) to maintain a positive floor presence.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 29.2m -14.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.7

Dominant work on the interior fueled a massive +11.7 impact, as he capitalized on extra touches to shatter his recent scoring averages. He anchored the paint with strong defensive positioning (+3.1) and created invaluable second-chance opportunities to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 17.7m -9.0
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Clunky offensive execution and a failure to stretch the floor resulted in a damaging -5.4 overall impact. Despite offering decent defensive resistance (+1.9), his inability to convert open looks bogged down the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 17.2m -8.9
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 12.9m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Defensive liabilities (-0.8) slightly outweighed his steady perimeter shot-making, resulting in a marginal -1.2 net score. He provided a decent scoring spark off the bench but gave too much ground on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 12.9m -6.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 39.1m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.1

A brutal shooting slump cratered his overall impact (-11.1) as he forced up low-quality looks throughout the night. While he provided excellent defensive value (+8.1) and active hustle, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely derailed his overall grade.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 39.1m -20.0
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Luka Dončić 39.0m
31
pts
15
reb
11
ast
Impact
+3.5

Heavy volume masked significant inefficiency, as a barrage of missed perimeter shots dragged down his offensive value. However, stellar defensive metrics (+8.6) and relentless rebounding kept his net impact positive (+3.5) despite the poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 9/24 (37.5%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 39.0m -20.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Rui Hachimura 36.1m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite doubling his recent scoring average with solid efficiency, his overall impact slipped into the negative (-0.9). A lack of defensive resistance (-0.4) and missing secondary playmaking elements offset the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 36.1m -18.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LeBron James 34.2m
29
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.9

Elite shot-making fueled a massive +14.9 overall impact, shattering his recent scoring average with highly efficient perimeter execution. His defensive metrics (+5.9) remained robust, ensuring this offensive explosion translated directly to winning value rather than empty calories.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.1%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.9
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 34.2m -17.5
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 31.4m
14
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.0

Flawless execution around the rim anchored a stellar +11.0 net impact, continuing a streak of hyper-efficient interior play. He paired this perfect shooting night with strong defensive positioning (+5.1) and active hustle (+3.2) to dominate the paint on both ends.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 31.4m -16.0
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 19.1m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Negative defensive metrics (-1.1) and a complete lack of offensive rhythm tanked his overall impact score (-8.3). He operated mostly as a bystander on the perimeter, failing to tilt the defense or disrupt the opponent's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 19.1m -9.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 17.0m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Minimal offensive involvement and poor shot selection resulted in a steep -8.1 overall impact during his rotation minutes. He failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure, and his slight positive contributions in hustle (+1.2) weren't enough to salvage a passive stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 17.0m -8.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 16.5m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-energy hustle plays (+5.2) defined this brief stint, keeping his overall impact slightly above water (+0.7). Though his recent scoring surge vanished due to a lack of touches, his commitment to doing the dirty work on the glass and in rotation provided steady value.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 16.5m -8.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A cardio-only appearance yielded a -1.9 net impact, as he failed to register a single meaningful offensive statistic. His brief stint lacked the defensive disruption needed to justify floor time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -56.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 4.4m -2.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Defensive lapses (-0.8) during a very brief cameo pushed his impact into the red (-2.5). He was unable to establish his usual physical presence, rushing his lone offensive touch before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 3.1m -1.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0