GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 28.4m
13
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-8.4

Despite high assist totals, a passive scoring approach and multiple sloppy passing errors dragged his impact into the negative. Holding the ball too long against defensive pressure led to stalled possessions and shot-clock violations. The defense was allowed to aggressively overplay the passing lanes because of his inability to punish drop coverage with a floater.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 28.4m -18.4
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
30
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

A string of live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks partially offset his high-volume scoring. Insistence on threading the needle in traffic led to costly mistakes, despite his relentless attacks on the paint. Forcing contested isolation threes late in the shot clock became a pattern that prevented his impact score from matching his raw production.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 27.9m -17.9
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jarrett Allen 26.6m
21
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.0

Operating with absolute dominance in the restricted area, both as a finisher and a rim deterrent, drove a highly positive net impact. Sealing off defenders early and refusing to waste possessions with low-percentage looks generated tremendous value. Providing a reliable safety valve for the offense, his flawless execution of the pick-and-roll during the first half was masterful.

Shooting
FG 8/8 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 98.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 26.6m -17.2
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 25.0m
32
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+21.2

Punishing every defensive lapse with lethal precision from deep, historic shooting efficiency fueled his massive impact score. Operating seamlessly off screens and never forcing the issue resulted in impeccable shot selection. The opposing defense's spirit was completely broken by a blistering third-quarter barrage where he hit four consecutive movement threes.

Shooting
FG 11/12 (91.7%)
3PT 9/10 (90.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 128.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +31.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 25.0m -16.2
Impact +21.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 21.5m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Overall effectiveness was weighed down by stagnant offensive positioning and a handful of ill-advised drives into traffic. Inability to convert around the rim left points on the board, overshadowing his sturdy on-ball defense. Repeatedly struggling to finish through contact against the opposing frontcourt resulted in empty possessions that hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +36.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 21.5m -13.9
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 27.4m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

A high foul rate that repeatedly put the opponent in the bonus undid his tremendous hustle and defensive metrics. Picking up cheap contact fouls by being overly aggressive navigating screens disrupted the team's defensive rhythm. His undisciplined aggression was perfectly encapsulated by a frustrating sequence of back-to-back reach-in fouls in the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 27.4m -17.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Offensive utility was severely limited by poor shooting efficiency and a failure to penetrate the first line of defense. Settling for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than pressuring the rim resulted in low-quality possessions. Constant defensive rotation was required because of his struggles to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 17.9m -11.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Stifling the offensive flow, a complete lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. Hesitation to shoot open catch-and-shoot opportunities bogged down the half-court sets, wasting his superb point-of-attack defense. His offensive timidity was perfectly illustrated when he passed up a wide-open corner three to drive into a crowded paint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 17.7m -11.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Active rebounding and excellent verticality at the rim kept his impact positive despite a rough shooting night from the perimeter. Consistently outworking his matchup on the offensive glass made up for his missed trail threes. His gritty interior presence was defined by a crucial sequence of altering two shots at the rim and securing a contested rebound.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 16.3m -10.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

A highly productive stint off the bench was fueled by high-energy rim runs and disciplined weak-side rotations. Capitalizing entirely on dump-offs and putbacks allowed him to maximize his efficiency without forcing his offense. The hallmark of his performance was an ability to blow up multiple pick-and-roll sets by hedging and recovering quickly.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 16.0m -10.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Sharply negative impact during his brief appearance resulted from defensive lapses and a failure to secure loose balls. Giving up backbreaking offensive rebounds to his assignment happened because he was repeatedly caught ball-watching. The coaching staff was immediately forced to pull him after a quick pair of blown defensive assignments in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -3.6
Avg player in 5.1m -3.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Stabilizing the frontcourt during his short stint relied heavily on veteran savvy and flawless positional awareness. Effective communication on defensive switches paired beautifully with his quick, decisive reads on offense. Highlighting his high-IQ approach to the game, he made a perfectly timed weak-side rotation to cut off a baseline drive.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 5.1m -3.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Effectiveness in limited minutes was quickly derailed by a lack of physical engagement and poor shot selection. Largely floating on the perimeter without impacting the play, he failed to register any meaningful hustle stats. His disjointed stint was underscored by forcing a contested, early-clock midrange jumper instead of moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 5.1m -3.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Jamir Watkins 28.5m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Forcing a high volume of heavily contested three-pointers eroded the value of his unexpected scoring surge. His net impact was dragged further into the negative by weak-side defensive lapses, completely negating his impressive hustle metrics. Losing his man on backdoor cuts during the third quarter completely undercut whatever offensive momentum he had built.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 28.5m -18.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.4m
13
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Setting the tone on the perimeter, his relentless point-of-attack defense generated a +5.5 defensive impact. A couple of costly live-ball turnovers slightly dampened his overall positive influence, even though his shot selection remained solid. Disrupting passing lanes during a pivotal second-quarter stretch ultimately defined his highly disruptive shift.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 24.4m -15.9
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 24.4m
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Despite decent offensive production, inefficient perimeter shooting heavily suppressed his overall impact score. He stayed in the green primarily by executing crisp defensive rotations and securing long rebounds. Settling for contested early-clock jumpers became a persistent pattern that prevented him from maximizing his value.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 24.4m -15.9
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 21.8m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.5

Careless ball security absolutely cratered his overall impact by bleeding points through opponent transition opportunities. Defensively, he struggled to navigate screens and frequently left shooters open on the perimeter. The defining moment of his night was a disastrous three-minute stretch of consecutive bad-pass turnovers in the first half that erased any positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 21.8m -14.1
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 18.2m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

His stint was defined by poor shot selection, as he repeatedly forced isolation jumpers against set defenses. The sheer volume of empty possessions dragged his impact down, neutralizing the solid resistance he offered on the perimeter. A brutal stretch of three consecutive missed pull-ups in the fourth quarter perfectly highlighted his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 18.2m -11.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 28.8m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-17.4

Short-circuiting offensive possessions with forced attempts, an abysmal shooting performance completely nuked his impact score. The sheer number of wasted trips down the floor was too much to overcome, even with respectable defensive effort. Attacking set rim protectors in the second half resulted in multiple blocked shots, establishing a damaging pattern of empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.5%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 28.8m -18.6
Impact -17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.9

A massive net impact was driven by exceptional activity on the glass and elite weak-side rim protection. Rather than forcing bad shots, he capitalized on high-quality looks within the flow of the offense. His relentless effort on 50/50 balls during a crucial third-quarter run completely shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.4
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 24.0m -15.5
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

His otherwise efficient shooting night was severely undermined by frequent defensive miscommunications and costly reaching fouls. Giving away too many free points at the charity stripe dragged his net impact deep into the red. A recurring pattern of over-helping off strong-side shooters created a cascade of defensive breakdowns that defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 23.6m -15.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Anthony Gill 19.5m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

By anchoring the interior with flawless positional defense, he maintained a positive impact despite a sharp drop in scoring volume. Setting bone-crushing screens and executing perfect closeouts allowed him to make his presence felt without needing the ball. A textbook sequence of drawing an offensive foul followed by a contested rebound perfectly encapsulated his gritty, low-usage value.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 19.5m -12.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 14.5m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A lack of secondary playmaking and poor transition defense entirely offset his scoring efficiency. Giving up easy cutting lanes by struggling to stay attached to his man off the ball neutralized his perimeter shooting. This break-even performance was best illustrated by a specific sequence where he hit a deep three but immediately surrendered an uncontested layup.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 14.5m -9.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Suffocating on-ball defense and opportunistic scoring maximized his impact during a brief but flawless stint. Taking only high-percentage shots and keeping the ball moving ensured he didn't waste a single possession. Completely locking down the opposing point guard during a pivotal fourth-quarter stretch showcased his immense per-minute value.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 6.1m -4.1
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

During his short time on the floor, defensive intensity carried his impact score as he completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. Generating value entirely through deflections and denying entry passes proved more impactful than raw box-score production. His willingness to sacrifice his body for defensive stops was highlighted by a crucial drawn charge in the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 6.1m -4.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2