GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 40.7m
38
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.9

An absolute masterclass in offensive initiation and two-way dominance resulted in a staggering +14.9 total impact score. He dictated the pace of the entire game, pairing high-volume, efficient shot-making with suffocating perimeter defense (+6.6). His relentless motor (+5.0 hustle) in transition completely broke the opponent's transition defense during key second-half runs.

Shooting
FG 15/31 (48.4%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.7m
Offense +26.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +38.5
Avg player in 40.7m -23.6
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 34.7m
26
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Relentless offensive aggression and elite hustle metrics (+4.8) managed to keep his overall impact in the green despite notable defensive lapses (-1.5). He forced the issue from the perimeter with questionable shot selection, but his sheer volume and transition attacks overwhelmed the defense. A barrage of downhill drives ultimately compensated for the possessions he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 34.7m -20.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 30.3m
21
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

A massive, unexpected scoring explosion fueled a stellar +6.6 net impact, completely catching the opposing frontcourt off guard. He combined relentless activity on the glass (+3.5 hustle) with elite finishing around the basket to punish defensive rotations. His ability to consistently find soft spots in the zone defined a career-type breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 30.3m -17.7
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Quentin Grimes 24.6m
6
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.7

Tremendous defensive intensity (+6.3) and high-motor hustle plays were ultimately undone by a severe regression in shot-making. Snapping a hot shooting streak, his inability to convert open perimeter looks allowed defenders to heavily cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. His relentless point-of-attack pressure kept him on the floor, but the offensive friction dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 24.6m -14.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andre Drummond 23.2m
6
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Sheer dominance on the glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities, driving a steady positive impact (+2.2) despite low scoring volume. He used his massive frame to carve out deep positioning, wearing down opposing bigs through sheer attrition. Controlling the rebounding margins during the middle quarters proved to be his defining contribution to the game flow.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 23.2m -13.5
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 30.4m
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Phenomenal defensive instincts (+9.3) were entirely overshadowed by a frigid shooting night that stalled the offensive flow. He struggled mightily to create separation, forcing contested jumpers that frequently led to empty possessions and opponent run-outs. Despite locking down his primary assignment, his inability to punish closeouts dragged his overall value into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +39.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +9.3
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 30.4m -17.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Adem Bona 24.8m
10
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.5

Off-the-charts hustle (+5.4) and high-energy defensive rotations propelled a massive +7.5 net impact despite inefficient finishing. He functioned as an absolute wrecking ball in the paint, generating extra possessions through sheer physical exertion and relentless rim-running. His ability to out-work opposing bigs for loose balls defined a highly disruptive, game-changing stint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 24.8m -14.3
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Exceptional effort plays and high-end hustle (+4.2) couldn't mask the damage caused by severe offensive limitations. He short-circuited multiple possessions with poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact around the rim. The stark contrast between his elite motor and his lack of offensive polish ultimately resulted in a net-negative shift.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 17.7m -10.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

A complete lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the defense to play five-on-four, dragging his net rating down to a dismal -4.8. He essentially hid in the corners, failing to draw any defensive attention or create driving lanes for his teammates. While his defensive rotations were fundamentally sound (+3.4), his offensive passivity made him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 13.5m -7.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 36.5m
24
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

High-volume scoring couldn't salvage a negative overall impact (-5.5) as his perimeter shot abandoned him entirely. The lack of floor-spacing allowed defenders to sag, neutralizing his usual driving lanes and limiting his playmaking gravity. A surprisingly quiet defensive stint failed to offset the offensive friction.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 36.5m -21.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Naji Marshall 34.4m
22
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.9

Blistering efficiency from the field and suffocating perimeter defense (+6.6) propelled his positive net rating. He thrived as a secondary creator, punishing defensive rotations with decisive, high-percentage attacks rather than settling for contested jumpers. His ability to lock down the point of attack defined his highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.6
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 34.4m -20.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Anthony Davis 34.0m
24
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.1

Absolute dominance in the painted area generated a massive +23.3 box impact, serving as the engine for the team's success. He overwhelmed his primary matchups through sheer physicality, securing crucial extra possessions and converting heavily contested looks. His rim deterrence completely altered the opponent's shot profile during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 34.0m -19.8
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 30.4m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite shot selection and hyper-efficient finishing near the rim drove a highly positive overall rating. He anchored his minutes with robust defensive positioning (+5.5), consistently walling off drives and contesting without fouling. This two-way stability provided a crucial stabilizing presence for Dallas whenever the second unit struggled.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 30.4m -17.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ryan Nembhard 26.2m
7
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.0

Despite an uptick in scoring aggression compared to his recent averages, severe negative lineup swings completely cratered his overall impact (-8.0). He struggled to navigate screens effectively, allowing opposing guards to dictate the tempo and generate high-quality looks. The offensive flashes simply weren't enough to mask the defensive bleeding during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 26.2m -15.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.9

While he capitalized on his limited offensive touches with efficient finishing, a lack of defensive resistance (-6.9 total impact) severely undermined his value. Opponents consistently exploited his positioning in the pick-and-roll, yielding easy advantages that neutralized his scoring contributions. His inability to contain dribble penetration proved to be the weak link in the perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 21.4m -12.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive gravity and tanked his overall impact (-8.2). Because he forced several contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, the offense frequently stalled out during his minutes. Even a respectable defensive effort (+3.3) couldn't salvage a stint defined by disrupted rhythm and empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 17.5m -10.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Max Christie 14.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

A complete offensive disappearing act and porous defensive rotations resulted in a devastatingly poor -9.3 total impact. He failed to generate any gravity off the ball, allowing his defender to freely roam and clog driving lanes for others. Getting repeatedly targeted on switches defined a highly forgettable stint where he was played off the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 14.3m -8.2
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Offensive invisibility was entirely masked by a spectacular rim-protection clinic (+9.4 defensive impact). He completely abandoned his usual scoring role to focus exclusively on anchoring the paint, deterring multiple drives and altering the geometry of the opponent's offense. His willingness to sacrifice touches for elite verticality defined a highly specialized, positive shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +9.4
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 14.1m -8.1
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Complete passivity on the offensive end rendered him a non-factor, directly contributing to a sluggish -3.8 net rating. He failed to pressure the rim or initiate meaningful sets, allowing the defense to rest while he was on the floor. A brief flash of defensive engagement wasn't enough to justify extended minutes in a purely cardio-driven performance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 11.3m -6.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0