GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Joel Embiid 39.0m
40
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.9

Commanding constant double-teams in the post allowed him to dictate the terms of engagement. His sheer physical imposition generated highly efficient offense while anchoring the defense at an elite level. A dominant, all-encompassing performance driven by immense usage and rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 39.6%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +8.4
Raw total +39.9
Avg player in 39.0m -22.0
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 28.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S VJ Edgecombe 37.1m
15
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.9

Excellent defensive activity and high-motor hustle defined his positive contribution. He consistently made the extra effort plays, fighting through screens and contesting shots to disrupt the opponent's flow. His relentless energy in passing lanes masked a slight dip in his usual offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.0
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 37.1m -20.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyrese Maxey 35.2m
18
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.9

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock resulted in costly empty possessions that allowed the defense to set up. High-volume inefficiency from the floor dragged his net impact into the red. Despite solid playmaking and hustle, the sheer number of wasted offensive trips against set defenses was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 35.2m -19.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 30.2m
19
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

Strong offensive execution and active hustle kept his net impact firmly in the positive. He consistently capitalized on defensive rotations, attacking closeouts with purpose to generate high-quality looks at the rim. His relentless energy on the wing provided a reliable two-way presence that stabilized the rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 30.2m -17.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 28.2m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Elite defensive metrics were surprisingly undone by a lack of overall volume and involvement. Despite maintaining his streak of highly efficient finishing, he simply didn't assert himself enough to swing the game's momentum. The remarkably low usage rate limited his ability to leverage his defensive stops into transition offense.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 7.2%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 28.2m -15.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Timely cuts and off-ball movement created subtle advantages that broke down the defensive shell. Active hustle and smart connective passing buoyed his positive rating without needing to force the issue offensively. He found immense value by keeping the ball moving and attacking the offensive glass for second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 16.8m -9.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 16.6m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Lethal perimeter shooting drove a highly efficient offensive showing that masked his defensive shortcomings. He consistently punished defensive lapses by knocking down catch-and-shoot opportunities, stretching the floor and creating driving lanes. This offensive firepower easily outweighed his struggles navigating screens on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.7
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 16.6m -9.3
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Repeatedly passing up open catch-and-shoot looks allowed the defense to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. A sharp decline in offensive aggression limited his overall effectiveness and bogged down the spacing. His solid defensive positioning couldn't make up for his perimeter passivity.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 15.8m -8.9
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 12.8m
3
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Missing multiple point-blank attempts in the paint negated his solid defensive contributions and rim protection. Poor finishing around the basket severely hampered his net impact and wasted valuable trips. His inability to convert through contact on the offensive glass was a glaring issue.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 12.8m -7.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Looking a step slow on defensive rotations exacerbated his complete invisibility on the offensive end. Failing to convert any attempts or generate rim pressure quickly turned his minutes into a liability. The lack of scoring punch and negative box score impact highlighted a struggle to find the game's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 8.1m -4.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 37.8m
19
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Volume shooting without the requisite efficiency severely damaged his offensive footprint. Clanking numerous attempts from beyond the arc resulted in empty trips that bailed out the defense. The sheer number of wasted possessions on forced perimeter looks overshadowed his minor positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.2%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 37.8m -21.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Saddiq Bey 31.7m
34
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.0

Impact skyrocketed due to elite shot selection and capitalizing on defensive breakdowns. His ability to punish late closeouts from the perimeter created a gravitational pull that opened up the entire half-court offense. The massive offensive surge completely overwhelmed his matchup.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +29.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 31.7m -17.8
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 30.7m
5
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.5

Offensive invisibility absolutely cratered his net impact, turning him into a liability. He failed to make the defense pay for ignoring him off the ball, which completely ruined the team's spacing. Even his usually reliable defensive presence wasn't enough to salvage a disastrous stint where his matchup roamed free.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 30.7m -17.3
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 29.9m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Passivity in the half-court stalled the offense and dragged his net score into the red. By failing to generate his usual interior gravity, he allowed the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes for others. A stark lack of assertiveness around the rim defined this highly muted performance.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 29.9m -16.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Derik Queen 18.7m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Empty trips in the paint tanked his overall value despite solid defensive positioning. Struggling to finish through contact resulted in wasted possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His inability to convert dump-offs in traffic was a glaring weak point.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 18.7m -10.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Yves Missi 28.0m
7
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite rim deterrence and active hustle nearly offset his offensive limitations. However, blowing multiple finishes in the restricted area prevented him from pushing his net impact into the green. His defensive anchoring was vital, but the inability to capitalize on pick-and-roll feeds kept his overall value neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 28.0m -15.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Relentless point-of-attack pressure completely altered the rhythm of the opposing backcourt. He compensated for a cold shooting night by hounding ball-handlers and generating crucial stops. Exceptional defensive disruption anchored his positive impact and set the tone for the perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 21.4m -12.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Aggressive shot hunting yielded mixed results, as the empty possessions slightly outweighed his defensive peskiness. Firing away from deep early in the shot clock led to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. A massive surge in perimeter volume couldn't quite overcome the negative value of his missed attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 17.6m -9.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

An absolute terror on the defensive end, completely shutting down the interior during his minutes. He didn't need offensive touches to dominate the game, relying instead on elite positioning and shot alteration. His weak-side rim protection created a massive positive swing in a short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +11.0
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 15.6m -8.8
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Negative defensive impact and a lack of peripheral contributions dragged down his brief appearance. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, easily breaking down his point-of-attack defense. While he hit a couple of jumpers, he offered zero resistance on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 8.7m -4.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1