GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Darius Garland 33.2m
35
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.1

An absolute scoring clinic from behind the arc forced the defense into panic rotations all night. However, his overall impact was heavily muted by defensive blow-bys and live-ball turnovers that fed opponent fast breaks. The spectacular shot-making carried the offense, but his inability to contain dribble penetration kept the game closer than necessary.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 37.2%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 33.2m -21.1
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jarrett Allen 29.8m
14
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.4

Dominant rim protection (+8.6 Def) and elite screen-setting formed the backbone of a highly impactful shift. He generated massive value through relentless offensive rebounding and physical box-outs (+4.6 Hustle) that exhausted the opposing frontcourt. Continuing his streak of hyper-efficient finishing, he punished every defensive rotation with thunderous rolls to the basket.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 29.8m -19.0
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dean Wade 27.9m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.4

A complete lack of offensive aggression allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the primary creators. While he executed his defensive assignments reasonably well (+2.7 Def), his offensive invisibility crippled the lineup's spacing. The severe negative impact stemmed directly from playing four-on-five on the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 27.9m -17.8
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tyrese Proctor 26.9m
16
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

A massive surge in shooting volume came at the cost of overall offensive flow, as forced perimeter attempts disrupted the team's rhythm. He played passing lanes aggressively (+4.7 Def), but his gambles frequently compromised the back-line defense. The scoring explosion was ultimately a mirage that masked poor shot selection and costly transition lapses.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 26.9m -17.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 25.8m
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.4

Disastrous offensive execution (-4.0 Box) and forced, contested jumpers completely stalled the half-court offense. He was repeatedly targeted in transition, bleeding points before the defense could get set. Despite mild hustle metrics, his erratic decision-making on the perimeter actively sabotaged the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 25.8m -16.4
Impact -17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Lonzo Ball 28.1m
8
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.9

Brilliant hit-ahead passing and elite perimeter ball-denial (+5.5 Def) set a blistering pace for the transition offense. He perfectly executed his role as a connective playmaker, refusing to force shots while generating high-quality looks for others. His knack for securing long rebounds (+4.5 Hustle) consistently sparked instant fast-break opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 28.1m -18.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.0

Sluggish lateral movement (-2.6 Def) allowed opposing wings to consistently turn the corner and collapse the defense. He compounded these defensive woes by settling for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock. A total lack of weak-side awareness defined a highly damaging rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 25.8m -16.4
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

An unexpected barrage of aggressive drives to the rim caught the defense completely off guard, fueling a massive scoring spike. Despite the offensive fireworks, his tendency to over-help on defense left shooters wide open on the perimeter. The sheer chaos he created on both ends resulted in a wildly entertaining, yet mathematically neutral, performance.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 20.9m -13.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

A sudden infusion of brute force in the paint overwhelmed the backup bigs and generated high-percentage interior looks. He sealed his defenders early in the shot clock, providing a massive, reliable target for entry passes. This highly efficient scoring burst completely altered the momentum of the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 16.1m -10.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Maximized a brief rotational cameo by executing flawless defensive switches (+2.5 Def) and cutting decisively to the basket. He didn't waste a single motion, converting his limited touches into immediate points. A textbook example of a role player staying within himself to provide a quick, positive jolt.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 5.7m -3.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 33.2m
24
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Relentless rim pressure and decisive slashing fueled a massive offensive spike, completely overwhelming his individual matchups. While his perimeter shot selection was questionable, his active hands in the passing lanes (+3.5 Hustle) generated crucial transition opportunities. This was a breakout two-way performance defined by aggressive downhill attacks.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.1
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 33.2m -21.2
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
24
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.5

Absolute dominance in the pick-and-pop game stretched the opposing frontcourt to its breaking point. He paired this offensive hub role with exceptional positional rebounding and sturdy post defense (+10.7 Def) that walled off the paint. His ability to secure contested defensive boards consistently ignited clean fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +10.7
Raw total +37.2
Avg player in 32.3m -20.7
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Josh Giddey 30.0m
17
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.5

An uptick in scoring volume masked a highly damaging defensive stint where opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions. Empty-calorie offensive production couldn't offset the momentum-killing live-ball turnovers he committed in traffic. His lack of lateral quickness ultimately gave back everything he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 30.0m -19.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Coby White 29.8m
13
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
-9.8

Forced isolation possessions and clunky perimeter execution cratered his overall offensive efficiency. He surrendered too much ground on defense (-0.1 Def), frequently dying on ball screens and allowing easy downhill penetration. The playmaking volume was completely overshadowed by the negative momentum of his missed jumpers and defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 29.8m -19.0
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 19.5m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Elite point-of-attack ball pressure (+9.0 Def) salvaged a completely dormant offensive outing. His reluctance to attack closeouts bogged down Chicago's half-court spacing, neutralizing his overall value. He essentially functioned as a one-way specialist who locked down his primary matchup but offered zero gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +9.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 19.5m -12.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Tre Jones 22.1m
16
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.5

Masterful tempo control and suffocating point-of-attack defense (+4.8 Def) completely derailed the opposing backcourt. He extended his streak of hyper-efficient outings by taking only high-value shots in the paint. His relentless energy on 50/50 balls (+5.2 Hustle) routinely flipped broken plays into transition advantages.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 22.1m -14.0
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Exceptional off-ball movement and screen navigation (+6.0 Def) disrupted the opponent's perimeter rhythm. Even with a cold outside stroke, his constant motion and timely cuts to the basket kept the defense scrambling. He salvaged his shooting struggles by diving for loose balls and creating secondary scoring chances.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 20.2m -12.9
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Zach Collins 19.0m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Flawless shot selection from the perimeter forced opposing bigs to abandon the paint, opening up crucial driving lanes for the guards. He supplemented this floor-stretching gravity with timely weak-side rotations (+1.8 Def) to protect the rim. A quick burst of highly efficient pick-and-pop execution defined his productive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.5%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 19.0m -12.2
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jalen Smith 15.1m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Disjointed spacing and an inability to establish deep post position severely muted his offensive influence. He was frequently caught out of position on defensive rotations, leading to easy dump-off passes at the rim. A lack of physicality on the glass ultimately doomed his minutes to a significant negative return.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 15.1m -9.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 13.9m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

A passive approach to attacking the rim resulted in a sharp drop in offensive production, stalling the second unit's momentum. He provided adequate on-ball resistance (+1.6 Def), but his failure to generate paint touches made the offense highly predictable. A frustratingly quiet stint defined by floating on the perimeter rather than forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 13.9m -8.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

A completely invisible offensive shift was compounded by a total lack of rebounding effort. He offered mild resistance on the wing (+1.0 Def), but his refusal to engage in the offense left his team playing four-on-five. This brief appearance was defined entirely by his failure to leave any tangible imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 4.9m -3.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0