GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 36.0m
22
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.0

Blistering downhill speed generated consistent paint touches, but poor decision-making on kick-out passes resulted in momentum-killing turnovers. He settled for far too many contested pull-up threes early in the shot clock, bailing out a retreating defense. The scoring volume was ultimately offset by his struggles to navigate screens defensively against bigger guards.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 36.0m -23.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paul George 33.0m
32
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.8

Lethal shot-making from beyond the arc punished defenders for going under screens, completely warping the opponent's defensive geometry. He paired this offensive explosion with disciplined, switchable perimeter defense (+4.5 Def) that stifled opposing wings. His ability to hit contested, late-clock jumpers repeatedly bailed out stagnant offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 9/15 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +33.0
Avg player in 33.0m -21.2
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 31.3m
12
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.8

Flawless perimeter shot selection maximized his offensive efficiency, taking only what the defense conceded within the flow of the offense. His point-of-attack pressure (+5.8 Def) was instrumental in blowing up dribble handoffs and forcing the opponent into late-clock situations. Relentless off-ball movement consistently scrambled rotation assignments, making him a subtle but vital offensive connector.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 31.3m -20.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 29.1m
29
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.6

Overwhelming physical advantages in the mid-post forced constant double-teams, which he expertly diagnosed to create open weak-side looks. While his finishing efficiency dipped slightly due to forcing shots through heavy contact, his sheer gravity dictated the entire flow of the game. A dominant third-quarter stretch of drop-coverage rim protection slammed the door on any interior comeback hopes.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.4%
USG% 40.8%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 29.1m -18.7
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 22.6m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Excellent weak-side rim contests and active hands in the passing lanes (+4.0 Def) showcased his defensive engagement. However, his overall value cratered due to ill-advised gambles that compromised the team's transition shell. A sharp drop in offensive aggression compared to his recent outings left the second unit starving for slashes to the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 22.6m -14.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Elite motor and relentless effort on 50/50 balls (+7.0 Hustle) generated crucial extra possessions and kept plays alive. However, his offensive limitations were exposed when forced to put the ball on the floor, leading to stalled possessions and offensive fouls. He functioned well as an energy piece but lacked the half-court polish to push his overall impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 24.3m -15.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 24.2m
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

Capitalized brilliantly on defensive breakdowns by relocating along the perimeter, resulting in a barrage of uncontested catch-and-shoot threes. This massive scoring spike masked some glaring deficiencies in his on-ball defense (-0.5 Def), where he was frequently blown by on straight-line drives. His floor-spacing gravity during the second quarter was the primary catalyst for the bench unit's success.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 24.2m -15.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 17.4m
6
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Imposing rim protection (+4.7 Def) altered several shots in the paint, showcasing his value as a drop-coverage anchor. Unfortunately, a severe lack of offensive awareness resulted in clogged driving lanes and poorly timed rolls that sabotaged half-court execution. Opponents successfully neutralized his defensive presence by dragging him out to the perimeter in pick-and-pop actions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 17.4m -11.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient finishing by strictly operating within the restricted area and capitalizing on dump-off passes. He consistently sealed his man early in transition, creating easy passing windows for the guards. This disciplined shot profile and smart spatial awareness yielded a highly positive impact despite limited touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 12.2m -8.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

Maximized a brief rotation stint by executing crisp dribble handoffs and setting bone-jarring screens to free up shooters. His disciplined verticality at the rim (+1.9 Def) deterred a pair of drives without committing fouls. A highly efficient burst of connective playmaking stabilized the offense while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +61.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 6.2m -4.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Saw action only during the final garbage-time sequences, offering no real opportunity to influence the tactical flow. A blown defensive assignment on a baseline out-of-bounds play accounted for his negative score. He was essentially a placeholder to absorb the final minutes of a decided contest.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.2m -1.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Logged less than two minutes of action at the very end of the game, making genuine evaluation impossible. He tallied a minor hustle point by sprinting the floor in transition, but the ball never found him. His negative rating was merely a byproduct of the opponent hitting a late, uncontested jumper.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 38.8m
24
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Relentless downhill attacking generated high-quality looks at the rim, sustaining his recent offensive tear. He consistently disrupted passing lanes (+4.1 Def) to ignite transition opportunities, though a handful of live-ball turnovers kept his net impact from matching his gaudy box score. His aggressive point-of-attack defense against the opposing primary handler set a physical tone early.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 38.8m -24.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Bobby Portis 35.6m
17
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite a significant scoring surge above his recent average, defensive miscommunications in drop coverage allowed easy opponent floaters, tanking his net impact. His perimeter shot selection was highly questionable, repeatedly settling for contested above-the-break threes instead of attacking closeouts. The raw production masked how much he struggled to contain the pick-and-roll during the second-half collapse.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 35.6m -22.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 35.5m
31
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.1

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, fueled by elite rim protection (+9.7 Def) that completely deterred interior drives. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, he weaponized the pick-and-pop to stretch the floor and punish late rotations. His ability to consistently contest shots without fouling was the defining factor in neutralizing the opponent's frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.7
Raw total +38.8
Avg player in 35.5m -22.7
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 31.8m
17
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.6

High-level defensive rotations (+7.4 Def) anchored his floor presence, particularly when switching onto smaller guards on the perimeter. However, his overall impact was dragged down to near-neutral by forced passes in traffic that killed offensive momentum. He maintained his recent scoring rhythm but sacrificed efficiency for volume in crucial fourth-quarter possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.4
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 31.8m -20.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S AJ Green 29.3m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.3

Opposing wings ruthlessly targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness and bleeding points during a disastrous third-quarter stint. While he found some success spacing the floor, his inability to navigate off-ball screens negated any offensive contributions. A lack of physicality on the glass further compounded his heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 29.3m -18.9
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Settling exclusively for perimeter jumpers made his offensive profile entirely one-dimensional, allowing defenders to run him off the line with zero threat of a counter-drive. He was consistently caught ball-watching on the weak side (-1.1 Def), giving up crucial backdoor cuts. The scoring volume was essentially empty calories given how much he conceded in transition defense.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.1
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 20.8m -13.4
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cole Anthony 14.2m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Over-dribbling and forced isolation attempts against set defenses stalled the offensive flow and led to low-percentage looks. His defensive impact was virtually nonexistent, frequently dying on screens and forcing teammates into difficult rotation scenarios. A particularly sloppy stretch of second-quarter playmaking highlighted his struggles to manage the game tempo.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 14.2m -9.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gary Harris 13.8m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

Complete offensive passivity rendered him a liability, as he failed to even attempt a shot while defenders aggressively sagged off him to clog the paint. This lack of gravity destroyed the team's spacing during his first-half rotation minutes. Though he provided token resistance on the perimeter, his reluctance to engage offensively drove a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.8%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 13.8m -9.0
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jericho Sims 10.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Constant foul trouble and poor positioning on defensive rebounding sequences severely limited his effectiveness as a backup big. He was easily manipulated by pump fakes in the paint, compromising the rim protection scheme. Failing to register a single field goal attempt reflected his inability to establish deep post position or roll with purpose.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -44.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 10.8m -7.0
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Pete Nance 2.4m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Brief garbage-time deployment offered virtually no opportunity to impact the game's outcome. He managed to secure one quick bucket inside but was otherwise a spectator during the final possessions. The sample size was simply too small to evaluate any meaningful defensive or hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Relegated to closing out the final two minutes, his presence on the floor was purely procedural. A slight negative impact stemmed from being on the wrong end of a meaningless late-game run by the opponent's reserves. He registered a minor hustle metric by contesting a late perimeter look.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Brought his trademark chaotic energy to the final minutes, generating a quick deflection that spiked his hustle rating. His frantic closeouts disrupted the opponent's garbage-time rhythm just enough to yield a slightly positive net score. Ultimately, his stint was too brief to alter the broader tactical landscape.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Inserted solely to run out the clock, failing to register any meaningful counting stats or advanced metrics. He was caught out of position on a late defensive rotation, which accounted for the minor dip in his overall impact score. The outing was a complete non-factor in the grand scheme of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.4m -1.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0