GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 40.6m
40
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+19.6

Blistering downhill speed and lethal pull-up shooting culminated in a masterclass offensive performance. He torched drop coverages and transition defenses alike, maintaining incredible efficiency on massive volume. This relentless attacking mentality completely broke the opposing defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 84.3%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +34.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +40.1
Avg player in 40.6m -20.5
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 37.3m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

Extreme offensive passivity ruined his overall impact, refusing to hunt his shot despite playing heavy minutes. Despite elite hustle metrics and active hands on defense, his reluctance to attack off the catch crippled the team's spacing. The steep drop in scoring aggression allowed defenders to completely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 37.3m -18.7
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paul George 36.1m
15
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite defensive positioning and active hands drove a strong two-way rating despite a noticeable dip in his usual scoring output. He disrupted passing lanes consistently, generating transition opportunities that offset his perimeter shooting struggles. A veteran performance where he found ways to impact winning without dominating the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.8
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 36.1m -18.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 35.9m
37
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.5

Absolute dominance in the mid-post and painted area fueled a massive positive impact. He bullied single coverage and made quick, decisive moves before double-teams could arrive, resulting in hyper-efficient scoring. His sheer physical gravity warped the opposing defense on nearly every possession.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 41.4%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +29.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 35.9m -18.0
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 35.1m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Bricklaying from beyond the arc dragged his impact into the negative despite phenomenal defensive metrics. He chased through screens relentlessly and generated deflections, but his inability to punish closeouts stalled the offense. A stark regression from his recent efficient scoring form.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +7.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 35.1m -17.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Minimal offensive involvement limited his overall effectiveness, despite converting his only look to maintain his streak of efficient shooting. He competed hard on the margins with solid hustle plays, but simply didn't generate enough gravity to swing the game. A quiet stint where he blended into the background.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.8%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 20.8m -10.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 15.1m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

Defensive vulnerabilities and a lack of playmaking juice resulted in a heavily negative shift. He struggled to stay in front of his man on the perimeter, forcing the defense into rotation. The modest scoring output wasn't nearly enough to cover for the points he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 15.1m -7.6
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Adem Bona 8.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A complete offensive blank in limited minutes kept his impact slightly negative. He provided some rim deterrence and defensive energy, but his inability to finish plays around the basket hurt the second unit's flow. The raw physical tools were evident, but the polish was missing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 8.3m -4.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A brief, unimpactful cameo resulted in a slight negative rating. He knocked down a perimeter look but offered zero resistance defensively and failed to register any hustle metrics. Simply didn't have enough time or involvement to leave a meaningful footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 7.1m -3.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Barely broke a sweat in a microscopic rotation stint. He grabbed zero rebounds and attempted zero shots, essentially serving as a warm body for a few possessions. The lack of production directly reflected his lack of opportunity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.8m -1.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 37.9m
25
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.3

Surgical shot selection fueled a massive offensive rating, consistently punishing defensive rotations in the midrange. While his scoring efficiency was elite, minimal defensive resistance and secondary hustle plays kept his total impact grounded. He operated purely as an offensive engine in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 37.9m -19.1
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Relentless energy on the glass and in the passing lanes drove a strong positive impact despite a dip in his usual scoring volume. He anchored the interior with high-level hustle plays that created second-chance opportunities. A highly efficient two-way performance that didn't rely on getting his own shot.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +6.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 34.2m -17.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
27
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

A massive scoring explosion defined his night, punishing drop coverage with lethal perimeter shooting. He shattered his recent scoring averages by hunting his own shot aggressively while maintaining solid defensive pressure at the point of attack. This perimeter barrage completely altered the geometry of the defense.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 31.2m -15.8
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Efficient finishing around the rim kept his offensive metrics high, but defensive lapses dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to contain his matchup in the paint, neutralizing the value of his interior playmaking. A classic case of giving back on one end what he produced on the other.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 28.2m -14.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nique Clifford 26.9m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.9

An icy shooting night cratered his overall impact, missing the vast majority of his attempts to stall the offense. Despite the offensive struggles, he remained engaged without the ball, generating positive defensive and hustle metrics. His inability to find a rhythm ultimately outweighed the supplementary effort on the margins.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 26.9m -13.5
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Zach LaVine 28.7m
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

High-volume, low-efficiency chucking severely damaged his overall impact. He forced contested looks early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense and stalling the offensive flow. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't salvage a night defined by poor shot quality.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 28.7m -14.4
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Keon Ellis 19.6m
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Timely perimeter shooting and disciplined point-of-attack defense resulted in a steady, positive contribution. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities when the defense collapsed, maintaining his recent stretch of efficient scoring. A reliable two-way shift that perfectly complemented the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 19.6m -10.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Maximizing his limited touches with near-perfect finishing around the basket kept his impact in the green. Though his scoring volume dropped significantly from recent outings, his shot selection remained pristine. He played within the flow of the offense rather than forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 18.8m -9.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his overall rating, failing to attempt a single shot during his rotation minutes. While he fought hard for positioning to generate hustle points, poor defensive rotations allowed easy interior looks. The lack of scoring gravity made it impossible to stay on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense -1.9
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 14.4m -7.3
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2