GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 32.3m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Inefficient volume shooting, particularly a dreadful showing from beyond the arc, tanked his overall impact. He repeatedly forced drives into heavy traffic, resulting in empty trips that allowed the defense to reset. The lack of perimeter touch completely neutralized his driving lanes as defenders sagged off.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 32.3m -18.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tyrese Maxey 32.1m
32
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Relentless downhill attacking generated massive offensive volume, offsetting a somewhat inefficient shooting night. He constantly collapsed the defense with his elite burst, drawing fouls and creating chaos in the paint. His ability to shoulder a massive usage rate kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 32.1m -18.0
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 30.6m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

High-level finishing in the paint and excellent hustle metrics drove a solid two-way performance. He consistently beat his man down the floor, generating easy looks in early offense. His sustained efficiency streak continued as he capitalized on defensive breakdowns around the rim.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -43.7
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 30.6m -17.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 30.2m
2
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-19.3

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock completely derailed his offensive value during a catastrophic shooting night. The sheer volume of empty possessions killed the team's momentum and fueled opponent transition opportunities. Even decent defensive effort couldn't salvage a performance marred by terrible shot selection.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense -7.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 30.2m -16.9
Impact -19.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Adem Bona 22.7m
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Foul trouble and defensive miscommunications limited his effectiveness, dragging his net score slightly into the red. While he showed flashes of vertical spacing, he struggled to anchor the defense against disciplined pick-and-roll attacks. The inability to stay on the floor consistently disrupted the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -51.7
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 22.7m -12.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.0

Clunky offensive execution and forced shots in the midrange resulted in a heavily negative overall rating. He struggled to finish through contact, frequently stalling out drives when met with rim protection. The lack of playmaking to offset his scoring woes made his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 24.8m -13.9
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Poor spacing and an inability to knock down open perimeter looks severely hampered his offensive value. He hesitated on catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to recover and stifle secondary actions. The lack of offensive gravity made it difficult for the primary creators to operate.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -51.5
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 22.3m -12.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Defensive lapses and a failure to contain dribble penetration overshadowed a decent perimeter shooting night. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, bleeding points and compromising the team's defensive shell. The inability to stay in front of his man negated any value he provided spacing the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -67.6
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 16.1m -8.9
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Failing to generate crucial second-chance opportunities limited his usual impact during a surprisingly quiet stint on the glass. He struggled to establish deep post position, rendering him largely invisible in the half-court offense. The opposing frontcourt successfully boxed him out, neutralizing his primary elite skill.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 10.6m -6.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Exceptional hustle and defensive activity drove a highly positive impact despite a scoreless outing. He relentlessly contested shots and tracked down loose balls, generating crucial extra possessions for the offense. This high-motor approach completely shifted the energy of the game during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 6.8m -3.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Floating on the perimeter without threatening the defense resulted in a distinctly negative stint. He essentially allowed opponents to play five-on-four by failing to impact the game as a cutter or shooter. This complete lack of offensive involvement stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 6.8m -3.9
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Operating efficiently within his role provided a minor positive boost to the lineup during a brief cameo. He stayed within his limits, setting solid screens and rolling hard to the rim to command defensive attention. His fundamentally sound positioning ensured the offense kept ticking during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 4.6m -2.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 30.0m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

Passive decision-making cratered his usual impact, as he deferred far too often against aggressive perimeter coverage. While his efficiency was fine on limited attempts, the failure to initiate the offense aggressively stalled the team's momentum. The passive approach allowed the opposing backcourt to dictate the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 30.0m -16.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Hart 29.3m
6
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.1

Shooting regression heavily weighed down his overall impact, as he struggled to find his rhythm from the floor. Despite the offensive struggles, his defensive activity and rebounding effort kept him engaged. His inability to convert in the paint ultimately dragged his net score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +51.6
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 29.3m -16.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 28.9m
22
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.6

An aggressive offensive approach yielded a massive scoring surge, driving a highly positive box score impact. Even with a cold night from beyond the arc, his midrange execution and decisive drives broke down the defense. He capitalized on favorable matchups on the wing to consistently generate high-quality looks.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 28.9m -16.2
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.5

Dominance in the frontcourt was the catalyst for a massive net positive, fueled by hyper-efficient shot selection. He consistently punished switches in the post, forcing the defense to collapse and creating secondary actions. A balanced blend of interior scoring and defensive presence anchored the team's success during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 25.6m -14.3
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Landry Shamet 24.0m
9
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

Exceptional hustle metrics salvaged an otherwise quiet offensive outing. He generated crucial extra possessions by chasing down loose balls and disrupting passing lanes. This high-energy approach compensated for a low volume of touches, ensuring he remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +53.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 24.0m -13.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Sizzling perimeter shooting fueled a breakout performance that drastically exceeded his recent production. He spaced the floor immaculately, punishing late closeouts with confident catch-and-shoot execution. Solid defensive rotations further stabilized his minutes, making him a highly effective two-way contributor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 20.5m -11.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
26
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.4

An absolute eruption from beyond the arc completely shattered his typical offensive profile and drove an astronomical net rating. He paired this historic shooting variance with his trademark point-of-attack harassment, completely flustering the opposing ball handlers. The combination of elite spacing and defensive chaos defined the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 8/13 (61.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 90.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +82.9
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +10.5
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 18.6m -10.4
Impact +22.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.1

Flawless finishing around the basket and elite rim protection drove a dominant two-way impact score. He completely neutralized interior drives, altering shots and securing the defensive glass with authority. His relentless activity in the dunker spot provided a reliable safety valve for driving guards.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.4
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 15.0m -8.4
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Minimal production during a short stint kept his impact in the red, largely due to a lack of playmaking or defensive disruption. He settled for contested jumpers rather than attacking the rim, failing to ignite the second unit. The inability to generate rim pressure made his minutes highly forgettable.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +51.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 12.8m -7.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Limited minutes and a lack of offensive involvement resulted in a slightly negative overall impact. While he showed flashes of decent positioning on the glass, he failed to leave a significant imprint on the game's flow. He was largely a non-factor against the opposing frontcourt's size.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 9.6m -5.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Sturdy defensive execution and opportunistic scoring in transition kept his short stint firmly in the positive. He made quick, decisive reads when attacking closeouts, avoiding the stagnation that often plagues bench units. His positional versatility allowed the defense to switch seamlessly on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 9.6m -5.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Poor shot selection and an inability to break down his primary defender led to a negative stint. He struggled to orchestrate the offense in the half-court, often settling for low-percentage perimeter looks late in the clock. A lack of rim pressure allowed the defense to stay glued to shooters.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 9.6m -5.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Despite failing to convert a field goal, his impact remained positive due to smart ball movement and drawing fouls. He consistently made the extra pass to keep the defense rotating, generating quality looks for teammates. Solid off-ball defensive positioning helped mask his scoring struggles.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 6.8m -3.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0