GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 38.7m
22
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite defensive pressure (+15.5 Def) and relentless hustle completely overshadowed a highly inefficient shooting night. He made up for his missed jumpers by terrorizing ball-handlers and generating transition opportunities through sheer effort. His motor never stopped running, turning a poor shooting performance into a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +7.2
Defense +15.5
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 38.7m -23.7
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 34.6m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.7

A sharp decline in offensive aggression tanked his overall impact despite hyper-efficient shooting. He floated on the perimeter instead of attacking the paint, while offering zero resistance on the defensive end (-0.1 Def). The lack of assertiveness allowed the opponent to completely ignore him in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 34.6m -21.2
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 33.1m
33
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.7

Overwhelming offensive volume battered the interior defense and drove a massive +27.6 box score rating. Even with somewhat pedestrian defensive metrics by his standards, his ability to draw fouls and command double-teams dictated the entire flow of the game. He simply overpowered his individual matchups through sheer physical dominance.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 33.1m -20.2
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Paul George 30.3m
14
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

A massive drop in scoring volume was offset by elite defensive disruption (+7.5 Def) and active hands. He recognized his shot wasn't falling and pivoted to locking down the perimeter. This veteran adjustment kept his overall impact firmly in the green despite a quiet offensive night.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 30.3m -18.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 16.9m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

An absolute masterclass in defensive positioning generated a staggering +10.6 defensive impact score in limited minutes. He completely abandoned his recent scoring touch to focus entirely on rim protection and blowing up pick-and-rolls. It was a textbook example of influencing winning without needing the basketball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.6
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 16.9m -10.4
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.2

Despite decent counting stats, his overall impact cratered due to poor shot selection and stagnant off-ball movement. He settled for contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts, breaking the offense's rhythm. The defensive effort was passable, but it couldn't rescue a fundamentally disjointed offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 31.5m -19.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Efficient scoring bursts were negated by a lack of defensive resistance and low overall engagement. He failed to make an impact on the glass or in passing lanes, rendering him a one-dimensional threat. When he wasn't actively shooting the ball, he was essentially a passenger on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 26.1m -16.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 14.9m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-energy rim running and sturdy interior defense (+5.5 Def) squeezed maximum value out of a short rotation shift. He embraced his role perfectly, setting hard screens and contesting everything at the basket. This is exactly the type of low-maintenance, high-motor performance that anchors a successful bench unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 14.9m -9.1
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Perfect shooting efficiency couldn't mask a completely invisible performance in the hustle and defensive departments. He failed to register a single hustle play, allowing opponents to win every 50/50 ball in his vicinity. The lack of physical engagement dragged what should have been a positive stint into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +5.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 10.2m -6.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by forced shots and a complete lack of hustle metrics. He failed to find the flow of the game, clanking his attempts while offering nothing on the boards. The negative impact score reflects empty minutes that actively stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 3.6m -2.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
13
pts
9
reb
12
ast
Impact
-16.1

A brutal shooting slump cratered his overall impact despite respectable defensive engagement. Forcing contested looks led to a steep drop in scoring efficiency, completely erasing the value of his high-volume playmaking. His inability to find an offensive rhythm dragged down the entire starting unit.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 38.9m -23.8
Impact -16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jaylon Tyson 38.2m
39
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.7

An incredible offensive explosion drove a massive +31.1 box score impact, completely shattering his recent scoring averages. Elite shot selection and blistering perimeter efficiency masked average defensive metrics. This sudden scoring surge fundamentally tilted the game by punishing every defensive rotation.

Shooting
FG 13/17 (76.5%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 99.3%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +31.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +35.0
Avg player in 38.2m -23.3
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Evan Mobley 36.4m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Despite solid defensive anchoring (+6.8 Def) and consistent interior efficiency, his overall impact slipped into the negative. A slight dip in his usual offensive aggression limited his ceiling compared to his recent dominant stretch. He spent too much time deferring rather than forcing the issue in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 36.4m -22.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 4
S Jarrett Allen 33.2m
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite activity on the glass and loose balls generated a massive +8.0 hustle rating, keeping his floor high. However, a significant drop in offensive volume neutralized his overall net impact. He played the role of a garbage-man perfectly but lacked the dominant finishing touches of his recent outings.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +8.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 33.2m -20.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
-8.1

Heavy playmaking volume couldn't salvage a disastrous net impact driven by complete offensive passivity. Defenses dared him to shoot, and his refusal to attack the rim allowed opponents to cheat off him constantly. The high assist total was a mirage that masked how much his lack of scoring gravity hurt the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +30.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 22.1m -13.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Steady two-way play resulted in a mildly positive impact, anchored by reliable mid-range shot creation. He provided essential connective tissue with strong hustle metrics (+5.6) and timely defensive rotations. It was a workmanlike performance defined by taking exactly what the defense gave him.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 30.8m -18.9
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

An unexpected scoring boost provided a nice box score lift, but defensive lapses (-0.5 Def) bled value on the other end. He struggled to maintain positioning against stronger matchups, neutralizing his offensive gains. The flashes of scoring versatility were overshadowed by consistent rotational mistakes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 17.6m -10.8
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 11.6m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

A complete zero in the scoring column severely handicapped his offensive utility, leading to a negative overall score. He managed to stay on the floor through high-IQ defensive reads (+3.2 Def) and active hands in passing lanes. Ultimately, you cannot survive as a guard without putting any pressure on the rim.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 11.6m -7.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

A hyper-efficient shooting display from deep punished defensive closeouts and drove a stellar +11.0 net rating. He paired this offensive breakout with suffocating point-of-attack defense (+4.8 Def) to dominate his minutes. This two-way spark plug performance perfectly capitalized on his recent upward trajectory.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 11.2m -6.9
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0