GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.2m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.3

Rookie mistakes and defensive lapses dragged his overall impact deeply into the red despite a decent shooting clip. He was repeatedly targeted by New York's guards in pick-and-roll coverages, bleeding points on the defensive end that negated his offensive contributions. The heavy minute load only amplified his struggles to navigate screens and stay in front of quicker assignments.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 39.2m -19.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tyrese Maxey 38.1m
22
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.5

Relentless downhill attacking and steady playmaking kept his impact firmly in the green. He expertly balanced his own scoring with setting up teammates, utilizing his elite burst to collapse the defense and generate high-quality looks. Solid defensive effort and low mistake rates cemented a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 38.1m -18.7
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 37.2m
14
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Strong defensive disruption and active hands were entirely offset by erratic offensive decision-making and forced drives into traffic. He consistently disrupted passing lanes, but gave the value right back by missing contested looks at the rim. The juxtaposition of elite defensive hustle and sloppy offensive execution resulted in a slightly negative net score.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 37.2m -18.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 36.4m
38
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.6

Absolute dominance in the half-court offense fueled a massive positive rating, as he systematically dismantled every defensive coverage thrown his way. He drew fouls at a staggering rate against the Knicks' depleted frontcourt, putting immense pressure on the interior and dictating the game's tempo. Combined with solid rim protection, his sheer physical imposition made him an unstoppable force.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +27.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 36.4m -17.9
Impact +17.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Paul George 32.3m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Struggled mightily to separate from OG Anunoby's physical coverage, leading to a barrage of heavily contested, low-percentage jumpers. His inability to punish mismatches stalled the offensive flow, while his defensive contributions weren't enough to rescue a sluggish scoring night. The overall negative impact stems directly from settling for tough perimeter shots rather than attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 32.3m -15.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

A cold night from the perimeter completely neutralized his offensive value, as he failed to punish defenders for sagging off him. Without his outside shot falling, his floor-spacing gravity vanished, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. The resulting empty possessions heavily outweighed his standard defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 18.9m -9.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Hesitant decision-making and defensive missteps resulted in a negative return during his rotation minutes. He struggled to anchor his defensive assignments, frequently getting caught out of position on rotations. A lack of offensive assertiveness further limited his ability to positively influence the game.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 16.6m -8.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 11.6m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Negative defensive metrics highlighted a tough outing where he was consistently outmuscled in the paint. He struggled to secure defensive rebounds or alter shots at the rim, allowing second-chance opportunities that hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense -1.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 11.6m -5.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Failed to find the flow of the game during a brief stint, registering negative value across the board. Poor spacing and defensive indecision led to a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 9.7m -4.8
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 37.9m
31
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.9

Heavy offensive usage and high-difficulty shot-making kept his baseline value afloat, but defensive shortcomings severely capped his net impact. He was frequently targeted by Philadelphia's guards on the perimeter, giving back a significant portion of the value he generated through his isolation scoring. The immense scoring burden masked a high rate of defensive concessions that prevented a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 37.9m -18.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Hart 36.5m
10
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.9

Despite high activity levels on the glass, his overall impact slipped into the red due to empty offensive possessions and costly turnovers. The relentless transition pushes he usually thrives on resulted in forced plays against a set Philadelphia defense. His positive defensive metrics simply couldn't mask the offensive inefficiency that stalled momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 36.5m -18.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 36.4m
23
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.1

A masterclass in two-way wing play drove his massive positive score, highlighted by smothering perimeter defense that completely derailed Paul George. He capitalized on excellent shot selection, punishing defensive rotations with timely cuts and confident perimeter strokes. The combination of elite hustle and lockdown coverage made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.8
Raw total +34.0
Avg player in 36.4m -17.9
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 28.8m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.7

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance completely cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly settled for heavily contested looks. The sheer volume of clanked jumpers handed the opponent easy transition opportunities, nullifying his otherwise passable defensive effort. His inability to find any offensive rhythm stalled half-court sets and bled value on nearly every possession.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.7%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 28.8m -14.3
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Foul trouble and defensive liabilities clearly short-circuited his night, limiting him to a brief and disjointed stint. His inability to anchor the paint allowed Philadelphia to score freely inside, generating a negative defensive grade that tanked his overall value. A stark lack of offensive aggression further compounded his struggles during his limited floor time.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 16.0m -7.9
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.8

Relentless activity on the interior defined his highly impactful performance, as he generated crucial extra possessions through sheer physical dominance. His elite defensive positioning deterred drives to the rim, while his hustle metrics reflect a player who outworked opposing bigs for loose balls. By sticking to high-percentage looks and anchoring the paint, he provided massive two-way value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.2%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +6.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 26.6m -13.1
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Trigger-happy shot selection from beyond the arc severely damaged his offensive rating, as he repeatedly fired away early in the shot clock. While his defensive intensity remained a bright spot, the sheer number of empty offensive trips allowed the opposition to build momentum. The inability to convert open looks ultimately overshadowed his perimeter ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 26.2m -12.9
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Timely floor-spacing and surprisingly robust hustle metrics pushed his overall impact into positive territory. He consistently made the right extra pass and stayed active on the perimeter, punishing defensive over-helps. His off-ball movement kept the defense honest, providing a subtle but effective lift during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +5.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 24.5m -12.0
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

A quick burst of energy in limited action yielded a surprisingly strong positive score. He maximized his brief stint by executing his defensive assignments and securing loose balls, proving effective in a highly specialized role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 4.1m -2.1
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Brief mop-up duty at the end of the game offered virtually no opportunity to influence the outcome. He simply filled space during garbage time without registering any meaningful positive or negative actions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.8m -1.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0