GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 31.2m
14
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

A frigid shooting night defined his performance, as he continuously misfired on looks he normally buries. The sheer volume of missed shots (-4.3 total impact) outweighed his surprisingly robust defensive contributions. His inability to finish drives allowed the defense to stay home on shooters, stalling the entire offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 31.2m -18.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Paul George 29.7m
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.6

Traded his usual scoring dominance for an absolute masterclass in defensive disruption and hustle (+8.1). Even with his offensive volume down significantly, his relentless activity in the passing lanes and on loose balls drove a massive positive impact. He proved he can dictate the flow of a game entirely through effort and anticipation.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +8.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 29.7m -17.2
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 26.7m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Brutal shot selection and clanking from beyond the arc cratered his overall impact despite commendable hustle metrics. He repeatedly forced the issue against set defenses, killing offensive momentum and sparking opponent transition opportunities. The defensive effort was there, but the offensive decision-making was highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 26.7m -15.5
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Joel Embiid 24.9m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite solid defensive metrics and decent shooting efficiency, hidden costs like turnovers or slow transition recoveries dragged his net score slightly negative. He settled for too many contested perimeter looks rather than bullying his way to the foul line. The offense often bogged down when he held the ball too long at the elbows.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg -37.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 24.9m -14.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A rare lapse in finishing efficiency broke his recent hot streak and pushed his impact into the red. He struggled to anchor the defense during his minutes, frequently getting caught out of position on rotations. Without his usual reliable touch around the rim, his value quickly diminished.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 8.1m -4.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

Bleeding value across the board, his disastrous -11.7 impact score stemmed from a combination of passive offense and missed assignments. He failed to attack closeouts with his usual aggression, settling for contested jumpers that led to long rebounds. The lack of secondary stats like steals or deflections highlighted a generally uninspired stint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 26.0m -15.1
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite posting strong peripheral metrics in hustle and defense, hidden mistakes like poorly timed fouls or turnovers dragged his net score into the negative. He hit a couple of timely threes, but struggled to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack. The underlying metrics suggest he gave up more value in transition defense than he created in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 22.1m -12.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

Faded into the background offensively, failing to pressure the rim and settling for passive perimeter positioning. This lack of aggression allowed defenders to cheat off him, bogging down the team's spacing and resulting in a negative impact score. He offered decent positional defense, but simply didn't do enough to tilt the scales positively.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 17.2m -9.9
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Completely salvaged a dreadful shooting performance by locking in defensively. His excellent +5.3 defensive rating and active rebounding kept his overall impact above water. He recognized his shot wasn't falling and wisely shifted his focus to setting screens and disrupting passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 14.9m -8.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Bizarre shot selection, including two rare three-point attempts, nearly derailed his performance. However, his sheer size and ability to dominate the defensive glass (+2.4 defensive impact) kept him slightly in the green. He provided just enough interior presence to survive his own offensive misadventures.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 12.0m -7.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 11.1m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.5

Maximized every second of his floor time with relentless energy, generating a massive +5.5 impact in just 11 minutes. He played perfectly within himself, taking only high-percentage looks while terrorizing opponents with his hustle (+3.4). His physical screen-setting and rim-running completely changed the tempo of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 11.1m -6.4
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

A completely empty peripheral stat line perfectly illustrates his marginal influence on the game. He knocked down a shot but was otherwise a ghost during his rotation, failing to generate any hustle or defensive metrics. Without any playmaking or disruption, his presence was essentially neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 9.7m -5.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Provided an instant spark off the bench, attacking the basket decisively to generate a stellar +4.3 impact in under seven minutes. He didn't hesitate when the ball swung his way, punishing defensive rotations with quick, efficient finishing. His brief burst of energy completely flipped the momentum in the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 6.5m -3.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 33.5m
17
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.3

Anchored the interior with a dominant defensive presence (+8.1) that completely deterred opponents from challenging the paint. His elite shot selection continued a highly efficient streak, capitalizing on easy dump-offs and putbacks. The combination of high-motor hustle plays and flawless finishing made him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.1
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 33.5m -19.6
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
35
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+16.0

Completely took over the game offensively, generating a massive +16.0 net impact through relentless perimeter scoring. His ability to break down the defense and hit contested pull-up jumpers broke the opponent's defensive scheme. Even with a high usage rate, he maintained solid defensive engagement to round out a dominant showing.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +29.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 33.3m -19.3
Impact +16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 25.6m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Despite a significant dip in scoring volume, his impact remained firmly positive due to excellent rim protection and active rebounding. He maximized his limited touches by strictly taking high-percentage looks around the basket. His willingness to do the dirty work on the glass kept the team's momentum flowing.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 25.6m -14.9
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylon Tyson 25.0m
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

A sharp drop in offensive volume from his recent hot streak limited his overall footprint. While he spaced the floor effectively from the perimeter, his inability to generate consistent rim pressure dragged his net impact into the red. His defensive rotations were solid, but not enough to offset the missing offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 25.0m -14.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Darius Garland 23.0m
20
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.8

Orchestrated the offense with precision, slicing through the defense for high-quality looks to drive a positive net rating. He balanced his own scoring with excellent playmaking, avoiding the sloppy mistakes that often plague high-usage guards. A steady diet of well-timed drives kept the defense constantly backpedaling.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 23.0m -13.5
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

Provided a crucial scoring punch from the wing, utilizing his size to shoot over smaller defenders efficiently. His positive impact was driven almost entirely by shot-making rather than peripheral contributions like hustle or playmaking. He served as a reliable release valve when the primary actions broke down.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 21.6m -12.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Being a complete non-factor on the offensive end dragged his overall impact deeply into the negative. While he provided solid rim deterrence and active hustle, playing 4-on-5 offensively severely handicapped the unit's spacing. Opponents simply ignored him to double-team primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 1.9%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 21.2m -12.4
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Strong defensive metrics and active hustle plays couldn't salvage a disastrous offensive outing. His complete inability to generate points allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes for others. The resulting offensive stagnation tanked his overall impact score despite his gritty effort on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.5%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 18.0m -10.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 14.1m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Operated strictly as a spot-up threat, taking all of his attempts from beyond the arc to provide essential spacing. His quick decision-making and connective passing kept the ball moving, resulting in a modest but positive net impact. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the value he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 14.1m -8.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Cold shooting from the perimeter severely hampered his value during a brief stint on the floor. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, the offense stagnated, leading to a steep negative impact score. He tried to compensate with active off-ball movement, but the missed shots were too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 9.7m -5.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Made the most of a short rotational stint by providing steady veteran positioning on both ends of the floor. A quick perimeter make and mistake-free defense allowed him to post a positive net rating in just five minutes. He executed his specific role perfectly without forcing any unnecessary action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 5.0m -2.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Found success finishing around the basket during his brief appearance, but gave the value right back on the other end. Poor defensive rotations and an inability to protect the paint resulted in a slightly negative overall impact. His heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage were immediately exploited by opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 5.0m -2.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Failed to find the rhythm during a very brief cameo, looking out of sync with the team's offensive flow. A lack of hustle plays or defensive disruption meant he offered no secondary value when his number was called. The short stint was defined by passive positioning rather than active engagement.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 5.0m -2.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1