GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 39.3m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

A catastrophic loss of shooting rhythm severely damaged his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested floaters into heavy traffic. While he competed hard on the defensive end to navigate screens, his inability to collapse the defense offensively stalled the entire unit. The massive drop-off in his usual scoring efficiency was the primary culprit for his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +9.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 39.3m -19.6
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jared McCain 39.2m
10
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Ferocious point-of-attack defense and relentless loose-ball recoveries nearly made up for a dreadful shooting performance. He simply could not buy a bucket in the paint, blowing multiple layups through contact. His defensive motor was phenomenal, but the offensive dead weight ultimately tipped his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +6.8
Defense +9.7
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 39.2m -19.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 33.1m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Smothering perimeter defense and active hands in the passing lanes entirely salvaged a highly inefficient shooting night. He struggled to separate from his primary defender, clanking multiple forced pull-ups. However, his veteran awareness on weak-side rotations completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +11.4
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 33.1m -16.5
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 31.5m
27
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.7

Absolute mastery of the mid-post drew constant double-teams, which he expertly diagnosed to keep the offense humming. His sheer gravitational pull warped the opposing defense, while his rim deterrence on the other end forced countless kick-outs. Highly efficient shot creation combined with elite foul-drawing made him virtually unstoppable.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.3
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 31.5m -15.8
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jabari Walker 12.8m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Defensive lapses in transition and slow closeouts on shooters negated his modest offensive contributions. He found soft spots in the zone for easy finishes, but gave those points right back by losing his man off the ball. A lack of physical presence on the interior made him a target during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.0
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 12.8m -6.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Hesitant decision-making and bricked spot-up opportunities allowed defenders to completely ignore him on the perimeter. He struggled to stay in front of quicker wings defensively, leading to compromised rotations behind him. The combination of offensive invisibility and defensive vulnerability made for a highly damaging shift.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 20.4m -10.2
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 18.6m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Constant foul trouble and missed defensive rotations completely undermined his perfect shooting efficiency around the rim. He bit on multiple pump fakes, surrendering deep post position and easy layups to savvy veterans. Despite bringing high energy, his lack of defensive discipline proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense -1.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 18.6m -9.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Eric Gordon 17.1m
12
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Lethal spacing from well beyond the arc stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. He capitalized on every defensive miscommunication, punishing drop coverage with immediate catch-and-shoot daggers. His veteran positioning on defense also helped wall off driving lanes, rounding out a highly effective bench stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 17.1m -8.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.7

Utter domination of the offensive glass generated a tidal wave of second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit. He physically overwhelmed his matchups in the paint, converting deep seals into easy hooks. This overwhelming size advantage directly translated into a massive positive swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 16.6m -8.2
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Lowry 10.2m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Complete offensive passivity rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor, as he failed to even attempt a single field goal. While he barked out defensive assignments and maintained proper positioning, the lack of any scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers. His minutes were a structural negative due to playing essentially four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 10.2m -5.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Logged purely incidental seconds at the end of the game. There was no time to establish any measurable rhythm or impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +300.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Stepped onto the floor strictly for the final meaningless possession. The microscopic sample size offers nothing to evaluate.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +300.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
28
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-volume perimeter shooting anchored his offensive value, though the sheer number of missed intermediate jumpers kept his overall impact grounded. He leveraged his size well on the wing to contest shots, contributing to a solid defensive rating. The heavy reliance on isolation scoring prevented a higher ceiling on his net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 33.7m -17.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Egor Dëmin 33.5m
20
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.2

Blistering perimeter execution masked underlying defensive liabilities that ultimately zeroed out his overall value. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on the other end of the floor. Despite the hot hand from the corners, his inability to contain dribble penetration kept his net impact flat.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 33.5m -16.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Terance Mann 30.2m
4
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.5

Offensive invisibility and clanked perimeter looks dragged his overall impact into the basement. He passed up open driving lanes to settle for contested jumpers, stalling the half-court offense repeatedly. Without his usual point-of-attack disruption to fall back on, his floor time was a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 30.2m -15.0
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 28.3m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Relentless energy on the margins salvaged a rough shooting night where he forced too many looks from deep. His exceptional hustle metrics and switchability on the perimeter completely offset the damage from his bricked triples. A massive spike in offensive aggression yielded mixed results, but his defensive motor never wavered.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +6.9
Defense +5.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 28.3m -14.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 27.3m
16
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.1

Elite rim-running and flawless shot selection around the basket fueled a massively positive impact score. He completely locked down the paint defensively, altering driving angles and cleaning up the glass to limit second-chance opportunities. This was a masterclass in low-usage, high-efficiency interior play.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 27.3m -13.6
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 21.9m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.2

A disastrous shooting performance completely tanked his impact score, as he forced heavily contested shots in the paint. Opponents sagged off him entirely, which clogged the driving lanes for everyone else. His inability to finish through contact turned potential scoring possessions into empty trips.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 21.9m -10.9
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.8

Exceptional connective passing from the high post and dominant positioning on the glass drove a wildly efficient stint. He punished smaller matchups inside, generating high-quality looks for cutters while securing every loose ball in his vicinity. His physical screen-setting alone created massive advantages for the guards.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 20.7m -10.3
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Settling for contested perimeter looks derailed his offensive rhythm and dragged down his overall rating. While he showed flashes of weak-side rim protection, the inability to pressure the rim offensively made him one-dimensional. A stark drop in his usual scoring aggression left the second unit starving for creation.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 17.9m -8.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Nolan Traore 14.4m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Passive decision-making and a failure to initiate offensive sets quickly led to a stagnant offense during his minutes. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the rotation. The lack of assertiveness was a stark departure from his recent aggressive play.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 14.4m -7.2
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Capitalized on a rare rotational opportunity by spacing the floor effectively from the weak side. His quick trigger on catch-and-shoot opportunities kept the defense honest, though his overall impact was muted by quiet defensive rotations. A perfectly fine, low-mistake shift that stabilized the bench unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 12.2m -6.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1