GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
30
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.8

Constant downhill attacking broke the paint open, forcing defensive collapses that fueled his massive impact score. Even with a streaky outside jumper, his ability to generate rim pressure and disrupt passing lanes dictated the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 33.1m -19.0
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 32.8m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.6

Flawless weak-side rotations and elite rim protection completely suffocated Detroit's frontcourt. He paired this defensive masterclass with highly efficient, opportunistic scoring, punishing mismatches whenever the defense scrambled.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.5
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 32.8m -18.8
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
S Darius Garland 32.1m
16
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.4

Disastrous perimeter shooting completely stalled the offense and allowed defenders to comfortably go under every screen. His inability to stretch the floor neutralized his playmaking, turning what should have been dynamic pick-and-rolls into stagnant, dead-end possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 32.1m -18.5
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 27.2m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Lethal sharpshooting was negated by a complete lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack. Opponents relentlessly hunted him in isolation, turning his elite floor-spacing into a zero-sum game by scoring right back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 27.2m -15.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 25.3m
6
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Wild drives into heavy traffic severely dragged down his overall value and led to empty possessions. He competed hard on the defensive end, but his inability to convert at the rim allowed the defense to ignore him in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 25.3m -14.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Passive offensive positioning and an over-reliance on contested mid-range looks drove a negative overall rating. He struggled to stay in front of quicker wings on the perimeter, bleeding value in transition defense despite hitting a couple of timely triples.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 24.1m -13.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Phenomenal defensive effort was almost entirely erased by his complete lack of offensive gravity. Defenders blatantly ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint, forcing his teammates to play four-on-five in the half-court and stalling the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.4
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 22.5m -13.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Scraped together a neutral impact through sheer defensive activity and timely closeouts on the perimeter. His offensive limitations were glaring, but his willingness to do the dirty work in the paint kept him from being a liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 18.0m -10.3
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Excellent positional defense and verticality at the rim anchored the second unit during a crucial first-half stretch. He didn't demand touches, instead thriving as a low-usage spacer who executed his drop-coverage assignments perfectly.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 15.2m -8.7
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 9.7m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Looked completely out of rhythm during a brief stint, offering zero offensive threat and allowing the defense to cheat off him into passing lanes. While his defensive instincts remain sharp, his inability to initiate the offense or bend the defense dragged his rating firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -75.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 9.7m -5.5
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 37.0m
27
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.3

Missed floaters and contested mid-range jumpers threatened to tank his value, but his elite defensive engagement salvaged the night. He consistently beat Cleveland's point-of-attack defenders off the dribble, generating high-quality kick-out looks for teammates to offset his own shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.2
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 37.0m -21.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Isaiah Stewart 31.5m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

His massive defensive rating was entirely undone by an invisible offensive footprint that ruined Detroit's spacing. Passive positioning against Cleveland's frontcourt allowed defenders to freely trap the perimeter without consequence.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.8
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 31.5m -18.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 4
S Paul Reed 30.1m
8
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

Relentless activity around the rim kept his impact in the green despite a dip in finishing efficiency. His high-motor offensive rebounding provided a stabilizing presence during crucial second-quarter stretches when the half-court offense bogged down.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 30.1m -17.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 29.5m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Bleeding value through a complete lack of hustle contributions, his floor-spacing presence wasn't enough to offset his limitations on the other end. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, turning his minutes into a glaring defensive liability.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 29.5m -17.0
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 21.7m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Defenders blatantly sagging into the paint on his catches defined his night, cratering his offensive value. This lack of gravity allowed Cleveland to clog driving lanes, completely neutralizing his otherwise solid weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 21.7m -12.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
25
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.5

Punishing defensive closeouts with a decisive trigger completely broke the opponent's defensive shell and drove a massive positive rating. His lethal perimeter execution single-handedly swung the game's momentum during a dominant third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 25.5m -14.7
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Timely weak-side defensive rotations and relentless loose-ball recoveries defined a gritty two-way showing. While his interior finishing left points on the board, his commitment to doing the dirty work and spacing the floor from the corners kept his team afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 24.0m -13.7
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 19.2m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Forcing contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock completely derailed his offensive rhythm and fueled Cleveland's transition attack. His inability to harness his elite burst into controlled half-court execution left his overall impact deeply in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 19.2m -11.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Crashing the offensive glass with reckless abandon salvaged a performance marred by erratic perimeter shooting. His sheer rebounding motor against bigger matchups defined his minutes, proving he can impact winning even when his jumper is broken.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 18.4m -10.6
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

This brief, erratic cameo was defined by forced pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock that immediately killed offensive momentum. He tried to inject energy defensively, but the empty offensive possessions made him unplayable in a tight rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 3.0m -1.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1