GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 38.8m
28
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Chased offensive volume at the expense of efficiency, repeatedly settling for highly contested perimeter isolation looks. The sheer number of empty trips allowed the opponent to consistently leak out in transition. While his burst generated some rim pressure, the overall shot selection actively harmed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 38.8m -21.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 33.7m
20
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

The raw scoring output completely masked a sloppy performance riddled with momentum-killing turnovers and poor decision-making in transition. He frequently derailed the offensive flow by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. Despite showing flashes of energetic hustle, his careless ball security drove his impact score firmly into the gutter.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +6.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 33.7m -18.6
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 32.3m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

A heavy diet of forced, contested drives tanked his offensive efficiency and dragged his overall score into the red. He managed to salvage some value by drawing contact in the paint and playing highly disruptive on-ball defense. However, the sheer volume of wasted possessions from the perimeter ultimately outweighed his gritty defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 32.3m -18.0
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Andre Drummond 27.9m
10
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.8

Dominated the interior with bruising screens and elite positional rebounding that completely controlled the possession battle. Surprisingly stepping out to drain a perimeter jumper highlighted an incredibly efficient offensive night. His massive physical presence anchored the drop coverage, directly fueling a highly lucrative net positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 27.9m -15.4
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 22.3m
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Operated as a complete offensive liability, failing to convert on his limited touches around the basket. While his rim-deterrence and switchability yielded a strong defensive rating, his inability to punish mismatches crippled the team's half-court spacing. The offense essentially played four-on-five during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 22.3m -12.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

Suffered a catastrophic impact score entirely driven by being relentlessly hunted on the defensive end. Opposing guards easily blew past his point-of-attack coverage, forcing the entire defensive shell into constant rotation. His efficient spot-up shooting was rendered completely moot by how much he bled points on the other side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 28.9m -16.0
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Adem Bona 19.7m
9
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.2

Completely altered the geometry of the court with terrifying weak-side rim protection and switchable pick-and-roll defense. His relentless vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for his teammates. This elite defensive anchoring and high-energy rim-running resulted in a dominant overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +11.9
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 19.7m -10.9
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Tanked his unit's momentum by forcing awkward, contested floaters in the lane instead of keeping the ball moving. His lack of foot speed was consistently exposed in space, allowing opponents to generate easy dribble penetration. A highly damaging stint defined by poor offensive processing and defensive physical limitations.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 16.3m -9.1
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Struggled to find the speed of the game during a brief rotation, frequently arriving late on weak-side defensive rotations. Sinking a lone perimeter shot provided a minor boost, but he was too easily displaced in the paint. Ultimately, he failed to leave a meaningful imprint on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.1
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 10.3m -5.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
0.0

Compensated for a completely broken perimeter stroke by rapidly processing the floor and distributing the ball at a high level. Despite missing every jumper he took, his pesky on-ball pressure disrupted the opponent's initiation. This playmaking and defensive grit perfectly balanced out his scoring zeroes to result in a flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 10.0m -5.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 37.6m
32
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.7

Overcame a brutal perimeter shooting night by relentlessly attacking the paint and generating trips to the foul line. His massive defensive metrics reflect elite weak-side rim protection and switchability that completely disrupted the opponent's half-court flow. This aggressive downhill mentality salvaged what could have been a highly negative efficiency game.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 14/16 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.9
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 37.6m -21.0
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 36.6m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Strong point-of-attack defense and active hands in the passing lanes generated solid hustle metrics. However, his overall impact slipped into the red due to stagnant half-court orchestration and likely coughing up momentum-killing turnovers. He thrived in chaos but struggled to manage the game tempo when the pace slowed down.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 36.6m -20.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

A frigid perimeter shooting night severely dragged down his overall rating, as he repeatedly bricked early-clock jumpers. He tried to compensate with aggressive on-ball pressure, yielding a strong defensive score. Ultimately, the wasted offensive possessions outweighed his gritty backcourt containment.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 33.1m -18.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elevated his baseline impact through disciplined perimeter containment and timely closeouts. Rather than forcing offensive action, he let the game come to him by taking high-value catch-and-shoot looks. This two-way stability kept his overall rating firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 27.2m -15.0
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Onyeka Okongwu 26.3m
8
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Impact plummeted due to uncharacteristic struggles finishing around the basket and settling for low-percentage perimeter jumpers. Without his usual vertical gravity rolling to the rim, the offense stagnated during his shifts. His defensive rotations were a step slow, failing to offset the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 26.3m -14.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
CJ McCollum 30.1m
23
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.1

Masterful shot selection and surgical pick-and-roll navigation drove a stellar overall rating. He picked his spots perfectly from beyond the arc while surprisingly holding his own at the point of attack defensively. This veteran composure stabilized the backcourt and consistently punished defensive drop coverages.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 30.1m -16.7
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jock Landale 21.7m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities to drag opposing bigs out of the paint and open up driving lanes. His relentless motor on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that boosted his hustle metrics. Even with minimal rim protection, his offensive spacing provided a clear net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 21.7m -12.0
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Failed to provide his usual floor-spacing gravity, rushing his perimeter looks against tight closeouts. His inability to shake loose off screens rendered him largely invisible during his stint. Without his primary weapon falling, he lacked the defensive versatility to impact the game in other ways.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 16.9m -9.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Looked completely lost within the offensive flow, failing to register any meaningful production during his brief rotation. His defensive positioning was equally erratic, frequently getting caught in no-man's land on pick-and-roll coverages. A highly detrimental stint characterized by empty minutes and missed assignments.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 10.3m -5.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0