GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
34
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+17.0

Sliced through the defense at will, combining lethal perimeter shot-making with relentless rim pressure. Unlike typical high-usage nights, he paired his scoring explosion with active hands in the passing lanes and high-level hustle. This comprehensive, superstar-level performance completely overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.3
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 29.9m -18.3
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Darius Garland 29.0m
19
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.1

Orchestrated the offense with solid shooting efficiency, but his overall impact was dragged down by defensive vulnerabilities at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, bleeding points that negated his playmaking value. The scoring volume simply masked how much ground he lost on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 29.0m -17.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Evan Mobley 28.7m
16
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.9

Put on an absolute masterclass in defensive versatility, suffocating ball-handlers and erasing mistakes at the rim. His highly selective, efficient finishing on the other end ensured no possessions were wasted. This was a textbook two-way clinic that dictated the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +12.2
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 28.7m -17.5
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 26.6m
16
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.8

Dominated the interior with forceful rim-running and disciplined drop coverage. By consistently sealing off driving lanes and finishing through contact, he established a physical baseline the opponent couldn't match. His paint presence was the steadying force behind a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +8.8
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 26.6m -16.2
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dean Wade 23.4m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Anchored the frontline with excellent weak-side rotations and stout post defense. While his offensive output was largely an afterthought, his willingness to do the dirty work and contest shots at the rim stabilized the second unit. The defensive heavy lifting perfectly balanced out his quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 23.4m -14.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 31.2m
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Forced the issue offensively with a barrage of contested, low-percentage jumpers that stalled ball movement. While he showed flashes of competence on the defensive glass, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged down his rating. Better shot selection would have easily flipped his negative impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 31.2m -19.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Acted as a defensive pest and loose-ball magnet, generating extra possessions through sheer grit. However, his complete reluctance to look at the basket allowed defenders to heavily sag off and clog the paint for others. The elite hustle metrics barely failed to offset the spacing issues he created on offense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 28.5m -17.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Sam Merrill 22.8m
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, but his defensive limitations were routinely exposed on switches. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll actions, turning his minutes into a defensive liability. Despite catching fire from deep, the defensive bleed resulted in a notably negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense -1.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 22.8m -13.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Provided solid weak-side rim protection during his rotation, altering several shots in the paint. Unfortunately, he was a complete non-factor on the offensive end, failing to establish any gravity as a roll man. The defensive utility couldn't completely rescue a shift plagued by offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 12.6m -7.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Rushed his offensive execution during a brief stint, clanking a pair of ill-advised jumpers early in the shot clock. He offered zero resistance or hustle on the other end to make up for the wasted trips. A highly forgettable cameo that actively hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -92.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Stepped in for a quick breather and immediately knocked down a pick-and-pop jumper to stretch the floor. He survived defensively without making any glaring mistakes in the deep drop. A perfectly adequate, neutral-impact shift from the veteran big man.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -92.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 34.5m
20
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

High-level defensive engagement set the tone on the perimeter and frustrated opposing wings. Coupled with active hustle plays, his two-way effort translated to a solid positive overall impact. Timely shot-making kept the defense honest without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 34.5m -21.1
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Booker 32.7m
32
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.6

Elite shot creation and high-volume efficiency carried his massive offensive metrics. However, a lack of defensive resistance and minimal hustle plays meant he gave a significant portion of that value right back on the other end. His scoring outbursts were spectacular but largely one-dimensional in driving winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 32.7m -20.0
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.6

Perimeter defensive tenacity and relentless off-ball activity defined a stellar two-way showing. Spacing the floor with confident catch-and-shoot daggers amplified his offensive footprint. He perfectly executed the role of a disruptive, floor-stretching pest to swing momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 27.2m -16.7
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 27.1m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.8

Bricklaying from beyond the arc severely damaged his offensive value and allowed defenders to sag off him. While he remained fundamentally sound on the defensive end, the sheer volume of empty possessions dragged his overall net impact deep into the red. He became an offensive liability during critical half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 27.1m -16.4
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Mark Williams 23.7m
2
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

A complete lack of touch around the rim negated his otherwise excellent rim protection and rebounding activity. He generated extra possessions through sheer hustle, but failing to convert on point-blank interior looks kept his overall impact slightly negative. Opponents eventually ignored him in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 23.7m -14.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Crashing the glass with reckless abandon generated massive second-chance opportunities, but his total inability to finish inside completely undermined that effort. Forcing wild, contested looks in the paint bled offensive efficiency. The relentless rebounding simply couldn't outrun the damage of a disastrous shooting night.

Shooting
FG 1/11 (9.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 16.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 22.4m -13.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 20.6m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.2

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his minutes, as defenders completely ignored him in the dunker spot. Without any rim-rocking finishes or playmaking to keep the defense honest, his presence actively clogged the paint for teammates. Marginal defensive contributions did nothing to stop the bleeding during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 20.6m -12.5
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 19.4m
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Floating through offensive sets without purpose led to poor shot selection and stagnant possessions. He failed to make up for the offensive inefficiency with any meaningful defensive disruption or loose-ball recoveries. A passive approach on both ends ultimately resulted in a heavily negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 19.4m -11.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.5

Instant microwave offense off the bench completely tilted the game's rhythm in a short stint. He attacked closeouts decisively and punished drop coverage with lethal precision. This hyper-efficient scoring burst maximized his court time and drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 15.3m -9.3
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

A brief, cardio-heavy stint yielded almost zero tangible impact on either side of the ball. He failed to register a single shot attempt or defensive stop, simply existing on the floor while the opponent went on a minor run. The lack of assertiveness made him a net negative in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 6.0m -3.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Provided a quick flash of rim deterrence during a very brief cameo. While he successfully walled off the paint on a couple of drives, his inability to get involved offensively kept his overall impact slightly below neutral. A standard developmental stint with no major mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +92.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Showed active hands and solid rotational awareness in a short burst of garbage-time minutes. A forced perimeter jumper docked his offensive grade, but the defensive energy was notable. He executed the scheme well despite the brief run.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +92.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 3.7m -2.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by immediately hunting and converting quality looks. His perfect shooting execution provided a sudden offensive jolt to close out the rotation. He did exactly what a deep-bench sparkplug is supposed to do.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +92.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0