GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 28.1m
16
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.0

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense and pristine shot selection maximized his value on every possession. Surprisingly, it was his exceptional anticipation in the passing lanes and stout post defense (+8.3 Def) that supercharged his overall impact score. He surgically dismantled the drop coverage without wasting possessions on forced step-backs.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +41.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 28.1m -12.8
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 23.8m
15
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.8

Total domination of the painted area defined this performance, as he completely erased opposing drives with towering verticality (+10.4 Def). He generated immense value through relentless screen-setting and rim-running, capitalizing on high-percentage dump-offs. This sustained his streak of elite interior efficiency while suffocating the opponent's inside game.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +65.0
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.4
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 23.8m -10.9
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
17
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.8

Slicing through the primary line of defense with ease, his premium shot creation drove a highly efficient offensive stint. He avoided the contested, low-percentage heaves that have occasionally plagued him, opting instead for clean pull-ups and hard drives. While his defensive metrics were merely average, his scoring gravity warped the floor enough to secure a solid net positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +87.5
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 20.7m -9.6
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 18.6m
10
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Elite rim deterrence and switchability (+5.0 Def) formed the backbone of his highly positive impact. Though his scoring volume took a dip compared to his recent dominant stretch, he maintained his trademark efficiency by finishing strongly through contact in the paint. He consistently altered shots at the summit, fueling transition opportunities for the guards.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 18.6m -8.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dean Wade 16.4m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.9

Absolute perfection from the field generated a massive surge in offensive efficiency during his time on the floor. He punished defensive rotations by burying every catch-and-shoot opportunity, snapping a recent cold streak in emphatic fashion. Active closeouts and solid positional awareness (+2.7 Def) rounded out a flawless shift.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 137.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +84.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 16.4m -7.5
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 22.5m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A handful of forced drives into heavy traffic resulted in empty possessions that nearly wiped out his overall contributions. He struggled to find the bottom of the net from deep, allowing his primary defender to sag into the paint. However, fundamentally sound weak-side rotations (+2.6 Def) kept his head just above water by the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 22.5m -10.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Sam Merrill 22.2m
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Failing to stretch the floor effectively, his inability to connect on spot-up opportunities neutralized his primary utility. Defenders quickly realized he was cold and began clogging the driving lanes, stalling the offense's rhythm. Despite decent effort chasing loose balls (+2.8 Hustle), the lack of perimeter gravity dragged his rating down.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 22.2m -10.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Pushing the pace with controlled aggression, he consistently collapsed the defense and made the right reads. His point-of-attack ball pressure (+3.4 Def) disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation, creating crucial transition chances. Bouncing back from a recent string of inefficient nights, he picked his spots perfectly to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 20.4m -9.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 19.6m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Tenacious on-ball harassment and spectacular screen navigation (+6.5 Def) completely derailed the opponent's perimeter attack. He was a menace in the passing lanes, turning deflections and hustle plays (+3.9) into immediate momentum shifts. Even with a slight dip in his usual scoring output, his defensive fingerprints were all over this highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.5
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 19.6m -8.9
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.5

Severe struggles to generate separation off the dribble led to a series of heavily contested, low-percentage heaves. His inability to collapse the defense stalled out multiple possessions, bleeding value every time he touched the ball. Continuing a brutal stretch of offensive inefficiency, his lack of playmaking completely tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 16.8m -7.6
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

A complete lack of offensive assertiveness and zero impact on 50/50 balls (+0.0 Hustle) rendered him virtually invisible during his shift. He passed up open looks only to force contested shots late in the clock, actively hurting the team's spacing. This flat, uninspired outing was a stark departure from his normally reliable frontcourt presence.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 12.0m -5.6
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than utilizing his floater game slightly suppressed his overall impact. While he couldn't buy a bucket from beyond the arc, he made up for it by staying locked in defensively (+2.5 Def) against quicker guards. He maintained his recent streak of solid interior finishing, which ultimately kept his rating in the black.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 10.0m -4.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Bleeding value in a very short stint, he was repeatedly caught out of position on defensive rotations and offered zero resistance at the rim. His offensive touches resulted in forced, out-of-rhythm attempts that fueled opponent run-outs. Failing to register a single hustle play further underscored a highly detrimental stretch of basketball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 8.8m -4.1
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nolan Traore 30.3m
8
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.1

An abysmal shot selection profile completely tanked his overall rating, highlighted by a barrage of forced mid-range pull-ups. Even elite lateral quickness and high-motor closeouts (+3.8 Def, +4.2 Hustle) were entirely undone by his offensive black-hole tendencies. He continues to struggle with efficiency, mirroring a troubling multi-game slump.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 30.3m -13.9
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Egor Dëmin 26.3m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Strong point-of-attack defense and active hands in the passing lanes (+3.2 Def) couldn't mask the damage done by empty offensive possessions. He struggled to finish through contact, leading to wasted trips down the floor. A tendency to force the issue off the bounce ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 26.3m -12.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

A high volume of missed perimeter shots severely capped his overall effectiveness despite a solid base of scoring. He settled for contested looks from deep rather than attacking the closeout. Serviceable weak-side rotations (+2.0 Def) ultimately kept his final impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -52.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 20.6m -9.5
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 19.8m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Firing blanks from beyond the arc cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly clanked pick-and-pop attempts. While he showed a slight scoring bump compared to his recent slump, the lack of defensive resistance (-0.1 Def) nullified those gains. Opposing bigs easily established deep post position against him.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -56.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 19.8m -9.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Day'Ron Sharpe 19.5m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Relentless activity on the offensive glass and loose balls (+3.6 Hustle) salvaged a night where his touch around the rim was nonexistent. He missed several easy bunnies in traffic, dragging down his scoring efficiency. However, his sheer physical presence and screen-setting generated enough secondary value to remain a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -71.8
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 19.5m -8.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 28.1m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Breaking violently out of a brutal five-game slump, he capitalized on excellent shot selection to punish late closeouts. His off-ball movement was crisp, allowing him to find the soft spots in the zone for rhythm jumpers. Steady, mistake-free execution on both ends cemented a highly productive outing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 28.1m -12.8
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Danny Wolf 27.9m
11
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.6

Anchoring the paint with spectacular rim protection (+7.5 Def) kept the opponent's interior scoring in check all night. Unfortunately, those massive defensive contributions were squandered by a heavy volume of clanked hook shots and forced jumpers. The sheer number of wasted offensive possessions ultimately pushed his net score below zero.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.9m -12.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

A catastrophic shooting performance completely derailed his night, as he repeatedly bricked open looks from the perimeter. This massive drop-off from his recent scoring tear allowed defenders to aggressively sag off and pack the paint. While his length disrupted some passing lanes (+3.9 Def), it was nowhere near enough to offset the offensive crater he created.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 22.3m -10.1
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Terance Mann 22.1m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Snapping out of a prolonged shooting funk, he provided a crucial two-way spark by burying timely corner threes. His impact was amplified by gritty transition defense and timely deflections (+3.3 Hustle). Taking what the defense gave him rather than forcing the issue resulted in a highly efficient, positive shift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 22.1m -10.2
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 15.8m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Locking down the perimeter with suffocating on-ball pressure (+4.6 Def) was the only silver lining in an otherwise disastrous offensive stint. His inability to connect on wide-open spot-up threes allowed the defense to completely ignore him. This sharp regression from his recent scoring averages stalled the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 15.8m -7.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Relegated to a minor role in this matchup, his overall influence was muted but functionally positive. He didn't force any bad looks during his brief stint, knocking down his lone perimeter opportunity in the flow of the offense. A lack of major defensive breakdowns ensured he survived his minutes in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 7.3m -3.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0