GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 45.6m
28
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.9

Elite defensive pressure (+13.2) completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation. He relentlessly pushed the pace, making high-value decisions in transition that broke the game open in the fourth quarter.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.6m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +13.2
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 45.6m -24.4
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 41.7m
17
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.1

Aggressive point-of-attack defense generated stops, but wild offensive decision-making erased those gains. A pattern of driving into heavy traffic resulted in empty possessions that kept his net impact flat.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.7m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.9
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 41.7m -22.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 40.0m
32
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Commanded heavy double-teams in the post, which systematically dismantled the opponent's defensive shell. Drawing fouls in the paint and protecting the rim (+6.0) kept his overall impact highly positive against a physical frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 13/22 (59.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 40.0m -21.4
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Paul George 32.3m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Forced isolation attempts and heavily contested jumpers derailed his usual offensive rhythm. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, severely punishing the team's transition defense in the third quarter.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 32.3m -17.2
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 12.6m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Maintained his highly efficient finishing streak around the basket but gave up too much ground defensively. Opposing guards actively hunted him in drop coverage, exposing his slow lateral footwork.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 12.6m -6.8
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Generated extra possessions through relentless hustle (+5.3), but poor spacing negated the advantage. Mistimed offensive rotations clogged the half-court sets, dragging his total into the red against a set zone defense.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 39.6m -21.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Adem Bona 22.9m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Thrived as a rim-runner by capitalizing on dump-off passes to boost his efficiency. Hustle plays on the offensive glass barely kept his overall impact above water despite offering minimal resistance against opposing drives.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 22.9m -12.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jared McCain 18.7m
3
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

Impact sank due to passive offensive positioning and an inability to break down his defender. Failed to create any separation on the perimeter, leading to stagnant, late-clock possessions against switch-heavy schemes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 18.7m -10.0
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.6

Capitalized on brief minutes with decisive, high-percentage looks around the basket. Brought immediate energy off the bench by securing critical loose balls during a pivotal second-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 11.6m -6.2
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 44.2m
24
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

Anchored the perimeter with elite defensive pressure (+10.2), completely shutting down his primary matchup on the wing. However, his offensive possessions often stalled out into forced, low-quality attempts that fueled transition counters.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +10.2
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 44.2m -23.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 6
S Spencer Jones 43.5m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite relentless energy on loose balls (+6.9 hustle), his overall impact sank into the red. Poor spacing and ill-advised closeouts allowed opponents to exploit the weak side during a crucial fourth-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.5m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +6.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 43.5m -23.2
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Pickett 41.9m
29
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.3

A massive scoring surge masked how much he gave back on the other end through blown pick-and-roll coverages. His tendency to over-help on drives completely neutralized his offensive production against the opposing second unit.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.9m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 41.9m -22.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bruce Brown 39.4m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Timely back-door cuts and disciplined shot selection kept his offensive efficiency humming. He consistently disrupted passing lanes, turning deflections into easy transition opportunities throughout the first half.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 39.4m -21.0
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S DaRon Holmes II 21.0m
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.2

Impact cratered by an inability to establish deep post position and settling for contested perimeter looks. Opposing bigs easily bullied him off his spots during a brutal second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 21.0m -11.2
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Zeke Nnaji 32.0m
21
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.6

Completely dominated the paint by contesting everything at the rim and securing crucial 50/50 balls. His breakout performance was defined by a stifling third-quarter defensive stretch that completely broke the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.8
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 32.0m -17.0
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
Hunter Tyson 19.4m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Provided a steadying presence by taking exactly what the defense gave him without forcing the issue. His floor spacing gravity opened up crucial driving lanes during a pivotal second-half run.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 19.4m -10.3
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.5

A complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) and sluggish defensive rotations dragged down his overall score. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, giving away easy baskets at the rim against quicker guards.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 15.4m -8.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Struggled to generate any offensive gravity during a brief first-half stint on the floor. His passive positioning allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 8.4m -4.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0