GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 31.6m
24
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

Dominant interior finishing and suffocating rim protection anchored a massive overall impact. He systematically dismantled smaller defenders in the paint, rendering his missed perimeter attempts completely irrelevant. His relentless activity level dictated the physical terms of the frontcourt matchup from tip-off.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +7.6
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 31.6m -22.0
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
28
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.0

A heavy diet of isolation jumpers resulted in over a dozen empty possessions, capping his overall impact despite heavy offensive usage. While his playmaking and defensive engagement kept him in the green, the sheer volume of missed shots allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. He ultimately traded efficiency for volume during crucial half-court stretches.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 31.4m -22.0
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Darius Garland 28.7m
22
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.1

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and surgical shot selection propelled him to a steady positive impact score. He consistently broke down the primary line of defense, creating high-value looks at the rim rather than settling for contested jumpers. However, minimal defensive resistance prevented his overall rating from matching his elite offensive output.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 28.7m -20.2
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jarrett Allen 28.2m
16
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.7

Controlling the painted area through sheer physicality and high-level hustle drove an elite net impact. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities and anchored the defensive shell against interior drives. By strictly adhering to a high-percentage shot diet, he maximized every offensive touch.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +38.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 28.2m -19.8
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 25.5m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Lethal floor-spacing gravity fueled a robust net impact, as his blistering perimeter efficiency punished every late closeout. By constantly relocating along the arc, he forced the defense into impossible rotational binds. Furthermore, his surprisingly stout positional defense ensured he was a two-way asset rather than just a shooting specialist.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 25.5m -17.8
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylon Tyson 26.3m
23
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

By punishing defensive lapses and relocating perfectly along the arc, he fueled a highly productive impact rating. He refused to let the ball stick in his hands, capitalizing on a hyper-efficient shot profile from deep. This decisive off-ball movement provided a massive secondary scoring punch that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 26.3m -18.4
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-10.0

Without any scoring gravity to respect, defenders aggressively played the passing lanes and tanked his net impact. By failing to convert a single field goal attempt, he effectively allowed the opponent to play five-on-four in the half-court. Even his solid defensive metrics couldn't salvage a stint defined by offensive impotence.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 25.6m -17.9
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.3

Errant shooting and an inability to generate separation off the bounce resulted in a disastrous net impact. He repeatedly stalled the offensive flow by forcing contested midrange looks that led to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. With negligible defensive contributions to offset the offensive drought, his minutes were highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 21.1m -14.8
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Despite converting his limited offensive touches, a tendency to get lost in defensive rotations dragged his overall impact down. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, frequently surrendering positional advantages that led to easy opponent scores. The low offensive usage simply wasn't enough to mask those costly structural breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 16.1m -11.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Defensive liabilities during a brief cameo pushed his net impact firmly into the red. He was immediately targeted on the perimeter, failing to contain dribble penetration and forcing the defense into emergency rotations. A complete absence of secondary hustle plays meant he offered no resistance once beaten off the bounce.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -73.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 2.8m -2.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Stretching the floor immediately upon checking in highlighted a highly efficient impact score in very limited action. He executed a perfect pick-and-pop sequence, pulling the opposing rim protector away from the basket. Solid positional awareness ensured his brief stint was entirely positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 2.7m -1.9
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 35.1m
25
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

High-volume gunning yielded a major scoring spike, but the sheer number of empty possessions from missed jumpers dragged his net impact into the negative. He forced the issue against set defenses rather than letting the game come to him. Despite strong on-ball defensive metrics, those inefficient offensive possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.2%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 35.1m -24.6
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
15
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.4

Despite stellar perimeter defense and highly efficient shot-making, his overall impact sank deep into the negative. This severe disconnect suggests his minutes coincided with disastrous lineup combinations or hidden costs like live-ball turnovers. He was frequently caught out of position during transition sequences, giving back the value he created in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 34.5m -24.2
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Rudy Gobert 31.4m
8
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite rim protection and relentless activity on the glass kept his defensive value sky-high. However, his overall impact hovered just below neutral due to offensive limitations and an inability to punish switches in the paint. Opponents successfully neutralized his roll gravity by packing the lane during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +4.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 31.4m -21.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Julius Randle 30.8m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Settling for contested looks from beyond the arc severely capped his offensive efficiency and dragged his net impact into the red. While he maintained solid defensive positioning, his tendency to stall the ball in half-court isolations disrupted the team's overall rhythm. That poor perimeter shot selection erased the value he generated through inside scoring.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 30.8m -21.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 26.7m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.6

A sharp regression from his recent scoring tear left a massive void in the offensive flow, cratering his overall impact. Defensive lapses and a lack of secondary hustle plays compounded the issue when his perimeter jumper wasn't falling. He struggled to stay attached to his primary assignments, bleeding value on the less glamorous end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.4
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 26.7m -18.6
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 28.1m
25
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.6

Scorching perimeter efficiency drove a massive positive net impact, as he consistently punished late rotations from the trail spot. His ability to stretch the floor completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. By capitalizing on nearly every open look, he provided a devastating offensive spark without sacrificing defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.0%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 28.1m -19.7
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Bones Hyland 20.5m
12
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.5

Crisp decision-making and flawless perimeter execution anchored a steady positive net impact during his rotation minutes. He expertly manipulated pick-and-roll coverages, taking exactly what the defense conceded without forcing low-percentage looks. Surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense ensured he wasn't targeted on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 20.5m -14.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 15.2m
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

Complete offensive invisibility left his team playing four-on-five, resulting in a brutal negative net impact. Without any scoring gravity to keep defenders honest, opponents freely sagged off him to clog the driving lanes. His minimal hustle contributions were nowhere near enough to salvage a highly detrimental stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 15.2m -10.7
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 6.3m
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

A flawless micro-shift yielded a highly efficient positive net impact in limited action. He immediately capitalized on a spot-up opportunity and kept the ball moving, demonstrating perfect role execution. His veteran positioning on defense prevented any breakdowns during his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 6.3m -4.5
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Failing to capitalize on his lone offensive touch resulted in a near-neutral impact score during a brief cameo. He broke his recent streak of high-efficiency finishes by rushing a contested look in the paint. However, adequate defensive rotations ensured he didn't actively harm the team during garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +73.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 2.8m -2.0
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.4

Exploiting a sleeping interior defense generated an absurdly high net impact in under three minutes of action. He aggressively cut to the basket on consecutive possessions, finishing flawlessly around the rim. That sudden burst of hyper-efficient scoring completely overwhelmed the opponent's second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +73.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 2.8m -1.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Perfect shot execution and surprisingly disruptive defense drove a stellar impact rating during a very short stint. He stayed disciplined within the offensive flow, knocking down his only look without stalling the possession. This quick burst of two-way reliability provided exactly what was needed at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +73.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 2.8m -2.0
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

A complete lack of secondary effort and an empty offensive trip tanked his brief appearance into the red. He looked out of sync with the offensive pacing, failing to generate any meaningful advantage off the dribble. Opponents easily swallowed up his lone drive, rendering his minutes entirely unproductive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +73.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 2.8m -2.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1