GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
45
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.2

An absolute offensive masterclass generated a towering positive impact score. He completely dismantled the defense with lethal pull-up shooting and explosive drives, scoring at will across all three levels. His shot selection was impeccable, consistently identifying and exploiting the weakest perimeter defender to break the game open.

Shooting
FG 15/25 (60.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 39.8%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 35.1m -18.1
Impact +16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Evan Mobley 35.0m
20
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

High-level two-way execution fueled a strong overall rating, highlighted by his continued interior efficiency. He routinely punished mismatches in the paint, utilizing soft touch and excellent footwork to bypass primary defenders. Active hands in the passing lanes and strong contested rebounding further padded his impressive hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 35.0m -18.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 34.8m
14
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite solid counting stats, his overall impact dipped into the red due to off-ball defensive lapses and poor spacing. He frequently lost his man on backdoor cuts, giving away easy baskets that negated his offensive contributions. A tendency to hold the ball too long disrupted the team's offensive rhythm during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 34.8m -18.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 33.2m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

A surprising negative impact score stemmed from an inability to anchor the defense against Orlando's downhill attacks. He uncharacteristically struggled with pick-and-roll coverages, often dropping too deep and conceding easy floaters. While his offensive conversion rate remained pristine, a lack of volume and defensive slippage proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 33.2m -17.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dean Wade 28.9m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Defensive versatility and excellent positional awareness drove a solid positive impact despite a quiet scoring night. He excelled at executing hard closeouts on Orlando's shooters without surrendering driving lanes. His willingness to do the dirty work on the glass provided crucial stability to the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.0
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 28.9m -14.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Poor shot selection and offensive disjointedness resulted in a heavily negative impact score. He settled for contested jumpers early in the clock, short-circuiting several promising possessions. While he showed flashes of defensive switchability, the offensive damage was simply too severe to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 23.6m -12.2
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.1

Scraped out a neutral rating by balancing minor offensive inefficiencies with steady playmaking. He managed the game well in the half-court, setting up teammates rather than forcing his own offense. A few late defensive rotations on the perimeter ultimately prevented his score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 15.5m -7.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite defensive execution and perfect perimeter shooting combined for a highly efficient two-way performance. He locked down his assignments on the perimeter, fighting through screens with relentless energy. Capitalizing on every open look he was given maximized his value in a limited rotational role.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 14.0m -7.2
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Lonzo Ball 13.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

A complete lack of offensive aggression severely limited his effectiveness during his time on the floor. He operated too passively on the perimeter, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and crowd the driving lanes. Solid point-of-attack defense couldn't make up for playing four-on-five on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 13.9m -7.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a brief but stable frontcourt presence, doing just enough to keep his impact in the green. He executed his defensive assignments flawlessly, communicating switches and walling off the paint. It was a low-usage, mistake-free shift that perfectly maintained the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 6.0m -3.0
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 39.8m
37
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.8

Absolute dominance as a primary creator drove a massive positive impact score. He relentlessly bullied his matchups in the mid-post during the second half, generating high-quality looks and finishing through contact at an elite rate. His defensive engagement and activity on the glass perfectly complemented his offensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/13 (69.2%)
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +30.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 39.8m -20.6
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 38.5m
19
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite solid scoring production, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to a high volume of empty possessions and missed jumpers. He forced too many contested looks early in the shot clock against Cleveland's perimeter length. A lack of playmaking creation further limited his offensive utility when his primary scoring role stalled.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 38.5m -19.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Anthony Black 37.2m
14
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.3

Elite defensive metrics and relentless hustle completely salvaged an otherwise rough perimeter shooting night. He generated massive value by blowing up dribble handoffs and securing long rebounds to ignite transition opportunities. This two-way disruption perfectly illustrates how a guard can positively influence a game without finding the bottom of the net.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +7.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 37.2m -19.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Impact suffered from a lack of offensive assertiveness, breaking a recent streak of highly efficient outings. He struggled to anchor the interior against Cleveland's bigs, frequently allowing deep post positioning that compromised the rotation. While he battled admirably for loose balls, his inability to command defensive attention dragged down the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 33.5m -17.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 27.3m
4
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.8

A disastrous shooting performance cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly misfired on open perimeter looks. The offensive futility completely overshadowed a genuinely disruptive defensive effort where he hounded ball-handlers at the point of attack. His insistence on shooting through the slump ultimately stalled out several crucial half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 15.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 27.3m -14.2
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Tyus Jones 18.3m
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Provided a steadying presence off the bench, driven by excellent point-of-attack defense and mistake-free distribution. He stabilized the second unit during a chaotic second-quarter stretch by dictating tempo and refusing to force tight-window passes. Even on low usage, his pristine decision-making yielded a solid positive return.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 18.3m -9.4
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 14.2m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Failed to make a meaningful dent in his limited minutes, with missed assignments and empty offensive trips dragging his score down. He looked a step slow navigating screens on the perimeter, frequently allowing easy dribble penetration. The minor uptick in his scoring average couldn't mask a lack of overall floor impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 14.2m -7.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Inefficiency around the basket severely hampered his effectiveness during his rotation stint. He forced several wild attempts through heavy traffic in the paint instead of kicking out to open shooters. While his defensive positioning remained adequate, the wasted offensive possessions proved too costly for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 12.4m -6.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Maximized a short stint with highly efficient shot selection and crisp defensive rotations. He perfectly executed his role as a connector, making quick reads and keeping the ball moving against a set defense. His ability to stay in front of quicker wings provided a noticeable boost to the defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 9.1m -4.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Generated all of his value through sheer defensive intimidation despite never looking at the basket. He completely shut down the paint during a brief first-half appearance, altering multiple attempts at the rim. The lack of offensive involvement kept his ceiling low, but his weak-side rim protection remains elite.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 5.0m -2.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A brief, ineffective cameo resulted in a negative score due to a complete lack of tangible production. He was entirely bypassed by the flow of the offense and failed to register any defensive disruption or hustle stats. This stint was defined by a failure to establish any physical presence on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -77.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 4.7m -2.4
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1