GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
33
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.6

Slicing through drop coverage with ease, his elite shot creation dictated the entire pace of the offense. The sheer gravity of his drives opened up the floor, masking occasional defensive lapses on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 14/24 (58.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 35.1m -18.0
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Evan Mobley 32.3m
8
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

Anchoring the paint with elite rim protection and timely weak-side rotations salvaged an otherwise quiet offensive night. He generated massive value through contested rebounds and loose ball recoveries, proving his worth doesn't rely on scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/5 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +8.7
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 32.3m -16.6
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 26.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Darius Garland 32.1m
18
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-9.3

Defensive bleeding at the point of attack completely erased his offensive playmaking contributions. Opposing guards consistently blew past him in the half-court, forcing rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.7
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 32.1m -16.5
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jarrett Allen 29.8m
8
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

A severe lack of offensive aggression limited his overall footprint, as he rarely established deep post position. He still managed to deter drivers effectively, but the inability to punish mismatches on the other end resulted in a neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 29.8m -15.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 23.8m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Forcing the issue in isolation led to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Despite showing flashes of adequate on-ball defense, his offensive inefficiency dragged his net rating down significantly.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 23.8m -12.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Clunky perimeter shooting stalled several offensive sets, though he managed to salvage possessions with timely cuts to the basket. His positional size helped maintain defensive integrity, keeping his overall impact barely in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 25.6m -13.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

Sparked the second unit by aggressively attacking closeouts and making decisive reads in the pick-and-roll. His gritty point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's rhythm, turning a breakout offensive showing into a comprehensive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 23.2m -11.8
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operating primarily as a defensive specialist, his length disrupted passing lanes and altered shots around the basket. A lack of offensive polish kept his overall impact muted, but he executed his rotational duties without making costly mistakes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 18.6m -9.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 14.8m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

Quick decision-making in transition and flawless spacing keyed a highly effective short stint. He connected the offense seamlessly while providing his trademark disruptive hands on the defensive perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +40.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 14.8m -7.5
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a brief cameo, failing to record any tangible positive actions. His inability to stay in front of his man during isolation sequences quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 4.7m -2.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 40.2m
21
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

Poor shot selection from the perimeter dragged his overall impact deep into the red despite a noticeable uptick in scoring volume. Forcing contested looks late in the shot clock neutralized his otherwise solid defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.9%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 40.2m -20.6
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jamal Murray 38.9m
34
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+16.4

Relentless offensive aggression and elite shot-making off the dribble broke the opposing defensive scheme entirely. He paired that scoring gravity with exceptional hustle in transition, resulting in a dominant, game-altering footprint.

Shooting
FG 12/28 (42.9%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +7.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 38.9m -20.0
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 36.4m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

An unexpected scoring surge anchored his positive box metrics, but his overall impact was tempered by unseen rotational mistakes. His active hands generated solid hustle numbers (+4.6), proving he can be a disruptive force when given extended run.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 36.4m -18.7
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S DaRon Holmes II 24.0m
3
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.3

Bricklaying from the outside severely limited his offensive ceiling and allowed the defense to sag off him in the half-court. While he found ways to contribute through secondary playmaking, the inability to finish at the rim kept his net impact negative.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 24.0m -12.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Pickett 18.5m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Suffocating point-of-attack defense defined this stint, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. He capitalized on his limited touches with pristine shot selection, driving a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 18.5m -9.4
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers early in the possession ultimately neutralized his scoring output. The lack of defensive resistance on the perimeter allowed opponents to easily trade baskets, keeping his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 28.0m -14.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 24.3m
0
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

An absolute zero on the offensive end, his inability to hit open looks severely cramped the floor for the primary creators. However, his elite screen navigation and on-ball pressure (+11.2 Def) kept him from being played off the court entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +11.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 24.3m -12.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
Zeke Nnaji 23.9m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Capitalizing on defensive rotations, he found soft spots in the paint to generate easy looks and shatter his recent scoring slump. His verticality at the rim altered several drives, ensuring his value extended well beyond just finishing plays.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 23.9m -12.3
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

A completely invisible stint where he failed to register any meaningful hustle plays or defensive stops. Opponents targeted him immediately upon checking in, exposing his slow lateral rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -62.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 5.7m -3.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0