GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 42.7m
20
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.6

A brutal shooting slump tanked his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock. Despite commendable defensive effort (+6.5 Def), the sheer number of empty offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. His inability to adjust his shot selection during the cold streak proved incredibly costly.

Shooting
FG 7/25 (28.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 42.7m -21.3
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 36.8m
25
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

High-volume rim pressure and aggressive defensive rotations (+7.6 Def) defined a stellar two-way outing. He consistently collapsed the defense with hard drives, absorbing contact and finishing through traffic. The sheer volume of his two-way activity overwhelmed his individual matchups.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 36.8m -18.2
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 34.0m
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Relentless activity on the margins (+9.6 Hustle) more than made up for a streaky overall shooting night. He weaponized his athleticism to blow up passing lanes and generate crucial transition opportunities. Hitting a barrage of spot-up threes provided the necessary spacing to keep the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +9.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 34.0m -16.9
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 27.6m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Continued his streak of highly efficient finishing by taking exactly what the defense conceded. Strong positional awareness (+4.3 Def) and timely contests at the rim anchored a sturdy defensive stint. He operated perfectly as a low-usage, high-reliability safety valve in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 27.6m -13.7
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andre Drummond 21.8m
8
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Total domination of the defensive glass fueled a positive impact, erasing multiple second-chance opportunities for the opponent. However, clunky finishing around the basket and a lack of overall mobility capped his ceiling. He served as a massive roadblock in the paint, even if his offensive touch was severely lacking.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 21.8m -10.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.0

Off-the-charts hustle (+10.5) and suffocating perimeter defense (+7.5 Def) drove a highly impactful performance. He didn't need a high volume of shots to dictate the flow, instead relying on deflections, loose ball recoveries, and fighting through screens. His relentless motor completely neutralized the opponent's primary perimeter threats.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +10.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 26.9m -13.3
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Adem Bona 26.2m
11
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Elite rim protection (+8.4 Def) and hyper-efficient finishing created a massive interior advantage. He capitalized on every dump-off pass while simultaneously erasing mistakes on the defensive end. This was a masterclass in playing a defined, high-energy role to perfection.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 26.2m -13.0
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Perfect shooting in limited minutes provided a quick, efficient spark off the bench. He stayed strictly within his lane, avoiding mistakes and executing offensive sets with precision. While the sample size was small, his mistake-free basketball kept the second unit stable.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -60.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 12.0m -6.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

A brief, ineffective stint was highlighted by slow defensive rotations (-1.1 Def) and a complete lack of offensive rhythm. He failed to inject any energy into the lineup, floating through his minutes without making a tangible mark. The quick hook was a direct result of his inability to impact the game physically.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -46.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.1
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 6.4m -3.2
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A disastrously short stint was marred by a complete lack of engagement (+0.0 Hustle) and defensive vulnerability. He offered zero resistance in the paint and looked entirely out of sync with the offensive flow. The negative swing happened rapidly due to his inability to match the game's intensity.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 5.6m -2.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 33.6m
27
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Inefficient volume shooting suppressed what could have been a dominant statistical night. However, an exceptional commitment to effort plays (+8.0 Hustle) kept his head above water. He compensated for the cold shooting stretches by fighting through screens and generating extra possessions to keep the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +8.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 33.6m -16.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Dillon Brooks 30.3m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.0

An abysmal shooting performance completely derailed his overall value, as he bricked his way through a high volume of perimeter attempts. While his defensive presence remained solid (+5.0 Def), the sheer number of empty trips and poor shot selection created a massive offensive deficit. His inability to find any rhythm dragged down the entire unit's half-court efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 30.3m -15.0
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.2

Perimeter shot-making provided a scoring boost, but his inability to dictate the tempo or disrupt the point of attack severely limited his overall value. Minimal hustle and defensive contributions meant he gave back whatever he generated offensively. He operated more as a spot-up threat than a true floor general, leaving the offense stagnant during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 28.0m -13.9
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 23.7m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Despite decent perimeter efficiency, his lack of off-ball activity and secondary playmaking limited his overall effectiveness. A near-invisible hustle rating (+0.2) suggests he was floating on the perimeter rather than engaging in the dirty work. The scoring output wasn't enough to offset his passive stretches on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 23.7m -11.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 18.2m
4
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

A sharp drop in offensive involvement left him operating primarily as a static rebounder. Defensive lapses in drop coverage (-0.5 Def) allowed opponents to exploit the paint, negating the value of his work on the glass. He failed to establish the interior dominance that usually anchors his impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 18.2m -9.0
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Oso Ighodaro 29.0m
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

Hyper-efficient finishing around the rim anchored a steady, if unspectacular, two-way showing. Solid rotational defense and reliable screen-setting (+4.0 Hustle) kept the offense flowing smoothly. He played perfectly within himself, taking only high-percentage looks and executing his assignments without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 29.0m -14.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
16
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.0

Elite defensive positioning (+8.4 Def) combined with timely floor-spacing to create a massive positive swing. He consistently punished defensive rotations by hitting high-leverage perimeter shots while maintaining suffocating pressure on the other end. This was a quintessential two-way role-player performance that amplified every lineup he joined.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.4
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 28.9m -14.4
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Green 19.9m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

A significant dip in scoring aggression resulted in a mostly neutral outing. While he chipped in with decent hustle metrics, his inability to consistently break down the defense or finish through contact limited his offensive ceiling. The lack of rim pressure forced the offense into late-clock, low-quality perimeter attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 19.9m -9.9
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.9

An explosive scoring surge paired with relentless energy plays (+7.5 Hustle) drove a game-changing performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm with aggressive point-of-attack defense while capitalizing on every offensive opportunity. This high-octane two-way effort single-handedly tilted the momentum during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +7.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 19.9m -9.9
Impact +19.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 8.5m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Brief minutes were marred by defensive breakdowns (-2.2 Def) that allowed easy penetration. While he showed flashes of energy, he failed to make any meaningful offensive impact to balance the scales. The short stint was defined by missed rotations rather than any positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +48.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 8.5m -4.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0