GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Jaylon Tyson 29.4m
20
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.8

An absolute force across all categories, pairing aggressive downhill drives with off-the-charts hustle metrics. He broke the game open during a dominant third-quarter stretch, generating second-chance opportunities through sheer willpower on the offensive glass. His breakout scoring efficiency was perfectly complemented by relentless defensive ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +48.3
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +7.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +29.4
Avg player in 29.4m -16.6
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.0

Immense offensive volume and elite shot-creation masked a somewhat inefficient shooting night. He constantly collapsed the defense with aggressive rim-pressures, generating high-value kickouts and loose-ball scrambles that heavily favored his squad. A pattern of relentless hustle plays in transition cemented his status as the primary engine of the team's success.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 28.7m -16.2
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jarrett Allen 24.1m
17
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Dominated the interior with a steady diet of high-percentage looks, continuing a dominant trend of elite finishing around the basket. His screen-setting consistently freed up the guards, while his rim protection completely deterred drives during the fourth quarter. This combination of offensive gravity and defensive anchoring drove a stellar overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +44.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 24.1m -13.7
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 23.9m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

A sharp decline in perimeter accuracy severely limited his ability to stretch the floor, stalling the offense during his rotation. Opponents recognized his shooting slump and aggressively stunted into driving lanes, bogging down Cleveland's half-court execution. Despite adequate defensive effort, his inability to convert open looks ultimately tanked his net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +61.5
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 23.9m -13.5
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dean Wade 17.9m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Punished late rotations with lethal catch-and-shoot precision, drastically exceeding his usual offensive output. His ability to space the floor as a trailer in transition created massive headaches for the opposing frontcourt. Combined with disciplined, switchable defense, his high-quality shot diet resulted in a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +44.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 17.9m -10.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Wreaked havoc with an elite combination of defensive switchability and off-the-charts hustle. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor, turning rim-runs into easy transition finishes that sparked a major run. His relentless motor on 50/50 balls and disciplined weak-side rotations made him an indispensable asset during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 28.5m -16.2
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Sustained the offense through the middle quarters by confidently hunting and converting mid-range pull-ups against drop coverage. His physical perimeter defense neutralized key opposing wings, forcing multiple late-clock bailout attempts. While hustle metrics were quiet, his combination of timely shot-making and defensive discipline yielded a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 21.0m -11.9
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Stretched the floor effectively as a trailing big, punishing the defense for sagging into the paint. His surprisingly stout interior defense altered several shots at the rim, anchoring a highly productive rotation for the second unit. A specific sequence of hitting a trail three and immediately securing a contested defensive rebound highlighted his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +58.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 16.5m -9.2
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Provided a massive jolt of unexpected two-way energy, blowing past his typical production with decisive, attacking offense. His ability to navigate screens and apply suffocating point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. A crucial stretch of generating deflections and converting them into transition scores defined his highly positive shift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +44.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 15.3m -8.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Offensive invisibility and a handful of forced, errant passes dragged his rating into the negative. He struggled to establish deep post position, leading to a pattern of stalled possessions and empty trips down the floor. While his defensive positioning remained stout, the complete lack of scoring threat allowed the opposition to overload the strong side.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 12.0m -6.8
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 12.0m
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

A complete refusal to look at the basket crippled the team's half-court spacing, allowing his defender to act as a free safety. The offense bogged down into predictable, perimeter-heavy sets during his rotation because he failed to apply any downhill rim pressure. Despite sound defensive rotations, his passive offensive approach resulted in a heavily negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 12.0m -6.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications by burying crucial spot-up threes, extending a multi-game streak of highly efficient shooting. His calm demeanor against ball pressure ensured smooth offensive initiation during a chaotic second-quarter stint. Minimal defensive mistakes allowed his crisp offensive execution to shine through in the final impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 10.7m -6.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 29.8m
29
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.0

Masterful manipulation of defensive rotations fueled a massive box-score impact, as he consistently generated high-value looks for himself and others. A dominant stretch of isolation scoring against switching defenders dictated the tempo of the game. However, a slightly muted hustle rating kept his overall net impact from reaching the stratosphere.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 29.8m -16.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S LeBron James 27.1m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-16.5

Impact plummeted due to a high volume of missed jumpers and a stark drop in scoring efficiency compared to his recent stretch. The offense stagnated during his minutes, marked by a pattern of settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint. Despite some minor positive hustle contributions, his inability to generate clean looks completely derailed his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 27.1m -15.4
Impact -16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jake LaRavia 26.6m
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Defensive activity and high-end hustle metrics kept his floor from completely collapsing, but poor shot selection dragged his overall impact into the negative. A glaring pattern of bricked spot-up threes killed offensive momentum during crucial half-court sets. He simply couldn't capitalize on the spacing created by the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 26.6m -15.1
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Marcus Smart 23.8m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

A severe lack of offensive production cratered his overall rating, continuing a troubling multi-game slump of forced, low-quality shots. While he provided his trademark defensive grit and generated several loose-ball recoveries, it wasn't enough to overcome the dead-end possessions he orchestrated on the other end. Opponents actively sagged off him, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 23.8m -13.4
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 19.4m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Flawless finishing around the rim anchored a highly efficient offensive stint that drove his positive rating. His reliable touch in the pick-and-roll consistently punished drop coverages, sustaining a multi-game pattern of elite interior execution. Solid positional defense further stabilized the frontcourt while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -51.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 19.4m -11.0
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 24.5m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Despite a massive surge in scoring efficiency and crisp perimeter shooting, underlying defensive lapses and off-ball mistakes dragged his net rating into the red. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation matchups by bigger guards, surrendering crucial blow-by drives that compromised the weak-side rotation. The sharp offensive turnaround was completely undone by the points he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 24.5m -13.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaxson Hayes 18.2m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Continued a reliable pattern of elite rim-running, converting high-percentage lob opportunities to anchor a positive offensive stint. His vertical spacing forced opposing bigs to stay tethered to the paint, opening up the perimeter for Laker shooters. Active rim protection and timely box-outs further solidified a highly effective, low-mistake performance.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 18.2m -10.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.8

Completely derailed the offense with a string of empty possessions, failing to convert on a single attempt from the field. His inability to finish through contact on baseline drives stood out as a glaring weakness that allowed the defense to leak out in transition. The severe drop-off from his usual scoring output created a massive negative swing in his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -40.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -7.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 17.6m -10.0
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Elite defensive versatility and relentless activity on the glass barely kept his net impact above water. A frustrating pattern of blown layups and rushed attempts in the paint severely capped his offensive value. He managed to salvage his rating entirely through high-energy closeouts and disrupting passing lanes during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 15.8m -8.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 12.0m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Found success operating out of the low post with crafty footwork, breaking a recent scoreless slump with highly efficient interior touches. However, a lack of overall hustle and minimal defensive resistance allowed opponents to match his production on the other end. His inability to anchor the paint defensively during his brief rotation ultimately resulted in a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 12.0m -6.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Capitalized on limited minutes by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down open perimeter looks. His quick trigger off catch-and-shoot situations provided a brief but much-needed offensive spark. While his hustle metrics were non-existent, sound positional defense ensured his efficient scoring translated to a marginal positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 8.4m -4.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Flawless shot selection and confident perimeter execution drove a massive spike in his overall effectiveness. He completely shifted momentum during a key second-quarter stint by draining spot-up jumpers and making rapid, decisive reads against scrambling closeouts. Sturdy point-of-attack defense further amplified this highly efficient, mistake-free shift.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 8.4m -4.8
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Played a purely connective role, entirely avoiding offensive usage while focusing strictly on defensive positioning. His impact hovered near neutral because his solid rim-deterrence was offset by a complete lack of floor-spacing gravity. A specific stretch of seamless pick-and-roll coverages highlighted his value, even as he vanished from the offensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 8.4m -4.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0