GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Joel Embiid 45.6m
32
pts
15
reb
10
ast
Impact
+13.0

Commanded the game through sheer physical dominance, drawing double teams that systematically fractured the opponent's defensive shell. His rim protection was equally suffocating, altering countless trajectories to anchor a massive defensive rating. The combination of high-IQ passing out of the post and elite paint enforcement drove a spectacular overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.6m
Offense +25.4
Hustle +4.9
Defense +10.8
Raw total +41.1
Avg player in 45.6m -28.1
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Tyrese Maxey 42.7m
36
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.7

Leveraged elite burst to constantly penetrate the first line of defense, creating a cascade of high-value scoring opportunities in the paint. Even with a cold night from beyond the arc, his relentless downhill pressure forced defensive rotations that opened up the floor. His ability to orchestrate the offense without coughing up the ball cemented a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 15/28 (53.6%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.7m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 42.7m -26.5
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 41.3m
26
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.1

Fueled a massive positive impact through sheer energy, generating elite hustle metrics by constantly beating opponents down the floor in transition. His shot selection was uncharacteristically disciplined, taking only high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense. This combination of hyper-efficient scoring and relentless off-ball movement completely overwhelmed his primary matchups.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.9%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +10.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 41.3m -25.5
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 40.0m
9
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.2

Poor decision-making on the perimeter severely hampered his value, as he repeatedly forced ill-advised shots early in the shot clock. While his defensive intensity and closeouts remained commendable, the empty offensive possessions killed the team's rhythm. This lack of offensive discipline ultimately sank his net rating despite solid underlying hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 40.0m -24.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 36.5m
10
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.4

Provided exceptional weak-side defensive help, consistently blowing up actions before they could materialize at the rim. However, an unusually passive offensive approach and a tendency to settle for contested jumpers kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral. He deferred too often in half-court sets, failing to leverage his usual scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +6.8
Defense +9.4
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 36.5m -22.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Executed his role perfectly by setting bone-crushing screens and rolling hard to the rim, ensuring high-efficiency finishes. His positional discipline on defense deterred baseline drives and contributed to a sturdy interior presence. By avoiding costly fouls and playing strictly within himself, he provided a highly stable, positive rotational lift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 21.4m -13.2
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Faded completely into the background offensively, failing to make himself available for kick-outs or exploit defensive gaps. His reluctance to pull the trigger allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him and clog the driving lanes for teammates. This extreme passivity, combined with late defensive rotations, resulted in a heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 19.1m -11.8
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Operated as a reliable connector in the half-court, making quick reads that kept the offensive machinery humming. While he didn't generate explosive hustle plays, his fundamental positioning prevented defensive breakdowns. A highly efficient, mistake-free shift allowed him to post a slightly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 11.0m -6.8
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Adem Bona 7.4m
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game during his brief stint, constantly finding himself out of position on pick-and-roll coverages. His inability to secure defensive rebounds gave away crucial second-chance opportunities that the opposition immediately punished. A lack of offensive involvement only highlighted his struggles to anchor the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -71.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 7.4m -4.6
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 44.0m
36
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.4

Despite a massive scoring surge above his recent average, his overall impact plunged into the negative due to back-breaking live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent transition runs. The perimeter shot-making was elite, but defensive lapses on switches allowed easy counter-punches. This high-volume production ultimately masked a fundamentally leaky floor game.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.0m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 44.0m -27.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
S Amen Thompson 41.9m
17
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.1

Relentless downhill attacking created a massive box score footprint, consistently collapsing the defense to generate high-quality looks. His point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, adding significant defensive value. The only thing capping his total impact was a handful of forced passes in traffic while trying to thread the needle on drives.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.9m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 41.9m -25.9
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.5

Brutal perimeter shot selection completely cratered his value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from deep instead of moving the ball. His defensive rotations and hustle metrics remained solid, but the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. This trigger-happy approach from the outside negated any positive physical play in the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 38.2m -23.6
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 37.5m
13
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.2

Anchored the interior with exceptional defensive positioning, disrupting multiple actions at the rim to generate a massive defensive impact score. However, a stark drop in his usual finishing efficiency dragged his overall net rating into the red. He struggled to solve the opponent's drop coverage, forcing awkward floaters instead of finding his typical rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +11.4
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 37.5m -23.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 22.4m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Capitalized on limited offensive touches with perfect perimeter execution, punishing defenders who sagged off him. Yet, his overall impact slipped below zero due to uncharacteristically low hustle metrics and late closeouts. He failed to generate the chaotic, momentum-shifting loose ball recoveries that usually define his role.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 22.4m -13.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Tari Eason 28.0m
13
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

Wreaked absolute havoc in the passing lanes, utilizing his length to blow up handoffs and generate elite defensive value. His relentless motor on 50/50 balls provided crucial extra possessions that kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. Even with streaky finishing at the rim, his sheer physical exertion dictated the tempo of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +10.2
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 28.0m -17.2
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Struggled to navigate ball pressure, resulting in disrupted offensive sets and poor finishing inside the arc. While his outside stroke remained pure when his feet were set, his inability to turn the corner on pick-and-rolls led to contested, low-efficiency mid-range attempts. The lack of secondary playmaking ultimately dragged his overall effectiveness down.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 22.6m -14.0
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 15.2m
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Failed to establish any vertical spacing, routinely getting pushed out of his preferred rebounding zones by more physical bigs. His defensive drop coverage was solid enough to deter early drives, but he offered zero resistance on second-chance opportunities. The inability to convert easy dump-off passes further compounded his negative floor impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 15.2m -9.4
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by confidently stepping into catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners. His off-ball movement stretched the floor effectively, though his defensive rotations were a step slow against quicker wings. Provided just enough spacing and timely hustle plays to keep his net impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 15.0m -9.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0