GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 34.3m
15
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.9

Smothering paint protection and elite switchability anchored a highly impactful two-way performance. He completely deterred drives during a pivotal fourth-quarter stretch, altering multiple shots without fouling. On the other end, his decisive rim-runs capitalized on the spacing created by the guards.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 34.3m -18.8
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Heavy reliance on contested, late-clock jumpers suppressed his overall efficiency and flattened his net impact. He frequently bogged down the offense by over-dribbling against set defenses, allowing opponents to load the strong side. While he generated some crucial deflections, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions balanced out his contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 34.0m -18.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Darius Garland 33.6m
23
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.5

Exceptional point-of-attack defense and disruptive hands fueled a highly positive two-way rating. He consistently pressured the ball-handler to blow up set plays before they materialized. Offensively, his willingness to push the pace in semi-transition created easy scoring angles that offset his streaky perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.6
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 33.6m -18.4
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 32.4m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

A surprising lack of offensive aggression and blown finishes around the basket severely hampered his overall effectiveness. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical coverage, leading to disrupted offensive flows. Even with solid rim protection, his inability to punish mismatches left too much value on the table.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 32.4m -17.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 27.7m
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Relentless off-ball movement generated great looks, but defensive frailties at the point of attack kept his net impact in the red. Opposing wings easily bullied him on drives, forcing the defense into scramble mode and leading to costly rotation fouls. His high-energy closeouts simply couldn't mask his physical disadvantages in isolation.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 27.7m -15.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylon Tyson 25.5m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Poor spatial awareness on the offensive end clogged driving lanes and disrupted the team's half-court spacing. He frequently drifted into occupied zones, making it easy for the defense to trap the primary ball-handlers. While he battled admirably on the defensive glass, those offensive spacing issues proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 25.5m -14.0
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

An unexpected surge in decisive rim-running and relentless offensive rebounding anchored a massive positive shift. He exploited sleeping defenders with sharp baseline cuts, converting high-percentage looks at the basket. His vertical spacing completely changed the geometry of the offense during a critical second-half run.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 19.2m -10.6
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.2

Disastrous shot selection and an inability to create separation resulted in a heavily negative offensive footprint. He forced heavily contested mid-range pull-ups that essentially functioned as live-ball turnovers. This offensive black hole completely overshadowed his otherwise passable weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 17.7m -9.7
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Hesitancy to initiate the offense allowed the opposing defense to dictate the tempo during his shifts. He frequently passed up open driving lanes, which stalled the second unit's momentum and led to shot-clock violations. Despite sound positional defense, his offensive passivity dragged his overall score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 15.7m -8.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 36.3m
28
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite floor-spacing and decisive off-ball movement fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He leveraged his size mismatches perfectly in the post, drawing crucial fouls to stabilize the offense during half-court sets. His stellar defensive positioning further amplified his positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 36.3m -20.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Keyonte George 33.5m
32
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+10.6

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and high-quality shot selection propelled his massive offensive rating. He consistently punished drop coverage with timely pull-ups, forcing the defense into impossible rotations. Active hands in the passing lanes provided a solid defensive baseline to round out a dominant showing.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 33.5m -18.4
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jusuf Nurkić 30.2m
11
pts
17
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.1

Absolute dominance on the interior drove a massive positive impact score, highlighted by elite rim deterrence and rim-running. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities through sheer physicality on the offensive glass. That relentless hustle completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +14.2
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 30.2m -16.7
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 26.2m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.9

Defensive bleeding severely undercut his efficient perimeter shooting. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness and dragging his overall impact deep into the red. He failed to generate enough disruptive hustle plays to compensate for those defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 26.2m -14.4
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cody Williams 21.4m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

A stark drop in offensive aggression derailed his overall impact, as he settled for perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint. His negative defensive metrics suggest he struggled navigating screens on the wing, allowing easy penetration. This passive approach was a sharp contrast to his recent scoring tear.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 21.4m -11.8
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Forced isolation attempts and poor shot quality cratered his offensive value. He repeatedly drove into heavy traffic, resulting in empty possessions that stalled the team's momentum. While his defensive effort metrics remained respectable, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips dragged his net score down.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 23.6m -12.9
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.9

Sloppy ball security in the half-court prevented him from capitalizing on his exceptional court vision. He forced several dangerous interior passes that turned into live-ball turnovers, feeding the opponent's transition game. That erratic decision-making ultimately outweighed his ability to break down the primary point of attack.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 19.0m -10.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 17.8m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

A lack of mobility in space allowed opponents to exploit him in high pick-and-roll actions, erasing the value of his perimeter marksmanship. He offered zero resistance in transition, failing to log any meaningful hustle stats. Consequently, his sharp shooting was overshadowed by the easy points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 17.8m -9.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Though his recent scoring surge completely evaporated, he salvaged a positive impact through high-motor rotational defense. He made his mark by setting bruising screens and contesting shots at the summit rather than demanding touches. This blue-collar shift proved essential during the second-quarter transition battles.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 16.8m -9.2
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Ace Bailey 15.3m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Timely weak-side rotations and disciplined closeouts allowed him to maintain a positive footprint despite a steep drop in offensive usage. He embraced a complementary role, focusing on connective passing and boxing out larger assignments. This mature defensive shift kept the second unit stable during a crucial third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 15.3m -8.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0