GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Anthony Davis 36.9m
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Despite providing his standard rim deterrence, an inability to establish deep post positioning resulted in a surprisingly negative net rating. He was frequently pushed out of his sweet spots by physical double-teams, leading to rushed, out-of-rhythm hooks. The offense stagnated whenever he failed to collapse the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 36.9m -20.7
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 56.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cooper Flagg 36.7m
12
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.9

A heavy volume of forced, inefficient attempts in the mid-range cratered his offensive impact despite solid defensive metrics. He struggled to finish through contact, frequently bailing out the defense with off-balance jumpers. This stark departure from his usual scoring efficiency stalled out multiple critical possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 36.7m -20.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S P.J. Washington 34.5m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Anchored the weak-side defense effectively, but a passive offensive approach limited his overall influence. He passed up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to cheat toward the primary creators. Ultimately, his elite rim rotations were offset by his disappearing act on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.9
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 34.5m -19.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Max Christie 29.1m
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Scoring volume masked underlying structural issues, as his defensive rotations were consistently a half-step slow. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, negating the value of his perimeter shot-making. His tendency to over-help on drives left shooters wide open, bleeding points on the back end.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 29.1m -16.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Nembhard 21.7m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Defensive fragility at the point of attack completely erased his surprisingly efficient scoring night. He struggled mightily to navigate high ball screens, forcing the frontcourt into difficult disadvantage situations. The lack of physical resistance allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo at will.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 21.7m -12.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

A heavy dose of contested, low-percentage looks at the rim severely dragged down his offensive efficiency. He repeatedly drove into crowded paint areas without a bailout plan, resulting in empty trips and transition opportunities for the opponent. While his on-ball defense was respectable, the poor shot selection ultimately dictated his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 23.6m -13.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite energy plays and constant off-ball motion compensated for a sharp dip in his usual scoring volume. He specialized in blowing up dribble hand-offs and securing crucial 50/50 balls to extend possessions. This gritty, glue-guy performance kept the second unit afloat during a physical stretch of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 22.4m -12.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Even with his perimeter stroke misfiring, his sheer gravitational pull warped the opposing defense and opened up driving lanes. He compensated for the poor shooting by executing precise defensive closeouts and communicating switches flawlessly. His veteran positioning ensured the team remained a net positive during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -38.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 13.1m -7.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.1

Absolute dominance in the pick-and-roll roll-man spot generated a massive positive impact in limited minutes. He set bone-crushing screens and sealed his man perfectly, demanding immediate defensive help that compromised the entire floor. His vertical spacing and rim protection completely changed the geometry of the game while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 11.1m -6.2
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Settling for deep, contested pull-ups early in the shot clock torpedoed his brief time on the floor. His failure to touch the paint or initiate set plays allowed the defense to easily rebound and run. This erratic shot selection directly fueled a negative swing during the transition periods.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 7.1m -4.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A fleeting appearance was marred by poor defensive positioning that immediately surrendered easy driving angles. He failed to register any meaningful offensive statistics, looking out of sync with the rotation. The coaching staff quickly pulled him after a blown weak-side rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -116.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 3.9m -2.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 42.4m
34
pts
8
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.5

Relentless downhill attacks and elite shot creation fueled a staggering offensive rating. His ability to break down primary defenders forced constant rotations, opening up the floor for the entire unit. Exceptional defensive engagement and active hands in the passing lanes cemented a masterful, two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 14/24 (58.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.4m
Offense +25.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +9.9
Raw total +40.3
Avg player in 42.4m -23.8
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S VJ Edgecombe 39.5m
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.4

Elite two-way activity drove a massive positive net rating, highlighted by suffocating point-of-attack defense. He consistently turned defensive stops into high-percentage transition opportunities, dictating the game's tempo. A breakout offensive rhythm perfectly complemented his relentless motor, making him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +6.9
Defense +11.3
Raw total +39.5
Avg player in 39.5m -22.1
Impact +17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
S Joel Embiid 35.3m
22
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.5

A dominant baseline profile was surprisingly neutralized by empty perimeter possessions and defensive miscommunications down the stretch. Settling for heavily contested jumpers and blanking from beyond the arc allowed the defense to pack the paint. His physical rim deterrence kept the game close, but inefficient shot selection late ultimately flattened his net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 35.3m -19.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paul George 33.1m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Despite generating significant defensive value and active hustle metrics, his overall impact plunged into the red. A complete inability to stretch the floor from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. This passive offensive approach stalled the half-court flow and neutralized his usual scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 33.1m -18.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Dominick Barlow 18.4m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Defensive lapses and a lack of offensive assertiveness severely dragged down his overall rating during a brief stint. He failed to establish any interior presence, allowing opponents to easily exploit his drop coverage. The sudden drop in shot volume after a highly efficient stretch rendered him nearly invisible on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 18.4m -10.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Exceptional spatial awareness and timely weak-side cuts maximized his offensive efficiency without demanding the ball. He anchored the perimeter defense by seamlessly navigating screens and locking down his primary assignment. This combination of low-maintenance scoring and high-level containment resulted in a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 105.6%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 38.5m -21.5
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Jared McCain 14.0m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Forcing contested shots against set defenses severely hampered his offensive value and dragged his net rating into the negatives. While he showed flashes of secondary hustle, his inability to find a rhythm or create separation bogged down the second unit. The lack of scoring gravity allowed opponents to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 14.0m -7.8
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 7.3m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Operated strictly as a stopgap interior presence, resulting in a perfectly flat net rating. He executed basic drop coverages adequately but lacked the physical imposition needed to alter shots at the rim. His minutes were defined by quiet competence rather than any disruptive playmaking.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +65.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 7.3m -4.1
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Limited court time yielded a relatively neutral overall impact, though an ill-advised perimeter attempt wasted a valuable possession. He provided adequate size in the paint but struggled to match the foot speed of smaller lineups in the pick-and-roll. Ultimately, he functioned strictly as a placeholder without shifting the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 6.8m -3.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

A brief, disjointed stint was marred by rushed perimeter attempts that derailed the offensive flow. Failing to secure positioning on the glass or generate meaningful contact minimized his utility during these minutes. The resulting empty possessions quickly forced a substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -47.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 4.6m -2.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0