GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Darius Garland 30.4m
27
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+10.9

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and highly efficient scoring at all three levels drove a dominant impact score. He relentlessly manipulated drop coverages, generating high-quality looks for himself and his rollers.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 30.4m -19.9
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
30
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.7

Explosive perimeter shot-making masked significant defensive apathy and off-ball ball-watching. The staggering difference between his +21.7 box metric and +1.7 total impact reveals how much value he bled on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 28.7m -18.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dean Wade 27.9m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Punished late closeouts with a barrage of perimeter makes, breaking out of a recent shooting slump. However, his overall impact was capped due to getting beat on back cuts and giving up crucial transition lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 27.9m -18.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylon Tyson 20.1m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.7

A complete offensive blackout from the field tanked his overall rating despite truly elite defensive metrics. His inability to convert open looks allowed the opposition to completely ignore him and trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -7.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 20.1m -13.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 19.8m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Total dominance in the paint and flawless shot selection fueled a massive positive net rating. His vertical spacing and elite rim deterrence completely dictated the geometry of the half-court.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +7.6
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 19.8m -12.9
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Sam Merrill 25.9m
4
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.2

Missing all of his perimeter attempts severely damaged his value, as his entire role relies on bending the defense with gravity. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to space the floor clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 25.9m -16.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.3

Lethal spot-up shooting and decisive straight-line drives powered a stellar net rating. He consistently punished defensive rotations, acting as the ultimate pressure-release valve for the offense.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 25.7m -16.8
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Lonzo Ball 23.8m
6
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.0

Passive offensive decision-making and a reluctance to pressure the rim allowed the defense to comfortably switch all actions. While his hit-ahead passes generated some rhythm, his lack of scoring gravity resulted in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 23.8m -15.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Capitalized on dump-off passes and offensive glass opportunities to generate highly efficient offense. His impact was somewhat muted by slow pick-and-roll defensive coverages that allowed opposing guards to turn the corner.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 19.6m -12.8
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Struggled to process defensive rotations at NBA speed, frequently getting caught out of position on weak-side actions. A couple of timely offensive conversions couldn't salvage a stint defined by defensive confusion.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 12.7m -8.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Barely factored into the game during a brief cameo, though he did manage to convert his only look at the rim. Defensive miscommunications in transition kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -140.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 2.9m -1.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Rushed a perimeter attempt during his brief appearance, failing to establish any offensive rhythm. His stint was too short to generate meaningful positive value, resulting in a neutral-to-negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -120.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 2.4m -1.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 30.8m
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Despite a hot perimeter shooting display, his overall impact cratered to -6.1 due to severe defensive lapses and negative non-box metrics. Opponents ruthlessly targeted him in space, completely negating the value of his floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 30.8m -20.1
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 29.6m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Forced perimeter shots and a lack of efficiency from deep dragged his overall impact into the red. While his defensive rotations and weak-side help generated a solid +5.0 defensive rating, the empty offensive possessions ultimately outweighed his effort on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 29.6m -19.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 26.7m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite defensive execution and sustained shot-making efficiency drove a highly positive overall rating. His ability to consistently punish closeouts while maintaining disciplined on-ball pressure defined a superb two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.6
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 26.7m -17.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S LaMelo Ball 24.4m
23
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+1.4

High-volume perimeter shot-making inflated his box score, but sloppy ball security and transition defensive lapses nearly wiped out his positive contributions. The massive gap between his +15.0 box metric and +1.4 total impact highlights how much value he surrendered through live-ball mistakes.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 24.4m -15.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mason Plumlee 10.0m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Bleeding value at an alarming rate during his brief stint, his presence on the floor coincided with massive opponent runs. A lack of rim deterrence and poor positioning in drop coverage resulted in a steep negative impact in just ten minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -51.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 10.0m -6.5
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Relentless activity on the glass and elite rim protection anchored the second unit. Even with a dip in his usual finishing efficiency, his sheer physical presence and second-chance generation dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +14.1
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 28.4m -18.6
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.4

Offensive invisibility and poor spatial awareness cratered his value during his lengthy stint on the floor. Opponents aggressively sagged off him to clog the paint, completely stalling the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 21.5m -14.0
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 20.7m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

An inability to generate meaningful advantages on offense combined with invisible off-ball defense resulted in a disastrous net rating. He consistently stalled offensive sets, allowing the defense to reset and dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 20.7m -13.6
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 19.5m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Timely perimeter shooting provided a necessary offensive spark, though his overall impact was muted by quiet stretches off the ball. His defensive versatility kept him on the floor, effectively neutralizing his primary assignment on the wing.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 19.5m -12.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 17.3m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

Aggressive dribble penetration consistently collapsed the defense, driving a solid positive impact despite some inefficient finishing at the rim. He forced the issue in the mid-range, creating secondary scoring opportunities for teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 17.3m -11.3
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

A hyper-efficient scoring burst in garbage time rapidly inflated his net impact. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages during a brief late-game stint to maximize his per-minute value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 5.5m -3.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence during his short rotation, executing perfectly on a spot-up opportunity. His veteran positioning ensured the floor remained properly spaced without surrendering anything defensively.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 5.5m -3.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0