GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Jaylon Tyson 35.8m
17
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

Defensive lapses and a tendency to get caught ball-watching on the weak side completely undermined his surprising scoring surge. While he found great success attacking closeouts, his inability to navigate off-ball screens gave up easy buckets that erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 35.8m -20.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Evan Mobley 34.8m
29
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+19.4

Completely terrorized the opposition on both ends, utilizing his elite length to suffocate ball-handlers and erase attempts at the rim. His offensive aggression was equally devastating, punishing mismatches in the post to continue a dominant stretch of highly efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +11.1
Raw total +39.1
Avg player in 34.8m -19.7
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
33
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.8

Carried the offensive load with relentless rim pressure and timely perimeter shot-making that broke the opponent's defensive shell. His ability to manipulate the pick-and-roll forced constant double-teams, allowing him to dictate the flow of the game down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +22.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 34.2m -19.4
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 33.6m
15
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.5

Controlled the paint with textbook positioning, deterring drives and securing tough contested rebounds in traffic. His rim-running gravity forced the defense to collapse repeatedly, opening up the perimeter while he maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +9.3
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 33.6m -19.0
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Dean Wade 28.0m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Provided excellent weak-side rim protection and active hands in the passing lanes, but his hesitation to let it fly from deep allowed defenders to sag off. The defensive versatility kept him on the floor, though his offensive passivity slightly capped his overall influence.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +33.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 28.0m -15.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.9

Lacked the burst to turn the corner, often dribbling the air out of the ball and stalling out half-court sets. Even with a surprising uptick in scoring volume, his inability to organize the second unit allowed the defense to easily reset.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 21.4m -12.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Failed to make an imprint defensively, consistently getting beat off the dribble and failing to offer resistance at the point of attack. His shot profile was heavily skewed toward contested mid-range pull-ups, resulting in inefficient, empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 19.0m -10.7
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Looked overwhelmed by the physicality of the opposing frontcourt, getting sealed off too easily on the block. He flashed decent mobility in spurts, but ultimately lacked the strength to anchor the paint or finish through contact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -73.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 15.2m -8.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Brought his trademark energy and vertical spacing to the floor, but bricked several wide-open perimeter looks that derailed offensive momentum. His switchability on defense was valuable, yet the inability to punish the defense for sagging off him neutralized his impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 13.7m -7.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Barely had time to break a sweat during a brief cameo that saw him struggle to stay attached to his man on the perimeter. His perfect shooting clip was a mirage in a stint defined by missed defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 30.2m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite steady scoring volume, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive bleed and giving up timely transition opportunities. The veteran's mid-range diet kept the offense afloat in stretches, but his inability to contain dribble penetration on the other end negated those gains.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -37.2
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 30.2m -17.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.3

Shot selection cratered his overall effectiveness, as he repeatedly bailed out the defense by settling for ill-advised perimeter jumpers. The relentless energy was evident in his rebounding, but bricking high-volume threes completely stalled the team's half-court momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -30.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 26.6m -15.1
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zach LaVine 22.5m
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Settled for difficult perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint, leading to disjointed offensive flow when he was the primary initiator. Even with respectable defensive metrics, his inability to consistently pressure the rim allowed the defense to stay home on shooters.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 22.5m -12.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Offensive rhythm completely vanished as he struggled to find his spots, breaking a streak of highly efficient shooting nights. While his activity level remained high on the glass and in defensive rotations, the sheer lack of scoring punch dragged his overall value down.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -51.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 20.4m -11.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Utterly invisible during his brief stint, failing to generate any offensive gravity and snapping a strong streak of efficient performances. He looked lost against the speed of the opposing frontcourt, resulting in empty possessions and a quick hook to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 9.2m -5.1
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 32.8m
16
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.9

Playmaking flashes were overshadowed by erratic shot selection and forced isolation attempts that disrupted the offensive rhythm. Despite showing solid defensive engagement, his high-variance decision-making in transition ultimately yielded a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 32.8m -18.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.5

Exploded offensively to shatter his recent scoring slump, aggressively attacking drop coverage to generate high-quality looks. While his point-of-attack defense was merely passable, his sudden burst of perimeter shot-making provided a crucial secondary scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 31.1m -17.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
24
pts
16
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.6

Dominated the interior with bruising screens and relentless work on the glass, creating second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back. His elite playmaking from the elbows dictated the tempo all night, anchoring a highly efficient offensive performance.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 30.7m -17.4
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Anchored the second unit with impeccable rim protection and disciplined verticality, completely shutting off the paint during his shift. He capitalized on every offensive opportunity presented to him, serving as an elite lob threat and screen-setter.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 22.8m -13.0
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Struggled to stay in front of his assignments, bleeding points on the perimeter and forcing the defense into constant rotation. His scoring output plummeted compared to recent outings, leaving him unable to offset the defensive damage he was conceding.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.0
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 13.8m -7.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0