GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.2m
19
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

Elite defensive metrics (+6.9) and aggressive interior finishing offset poor perimeter shot quality. Relentless point-of-attack defense defined his performance and kept his overall rating in the green. Blowing up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter showcased his immense defensive value.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.9
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 39.2m -21.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Tyrese Maxey 37.8m
28
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
+16.9

An absolute masterclass in two-way impact, driven by staggering defensive metrics (+13.8) and elite playmaking. Despite needing heavy volume to score, relentless hustle (+5.7) and the ability to dictate the flow of the offense resulted in a dominant +16.9 rating. A stretch of suffocating full-court pressure defined his incredible two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/26 (34.6%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.6%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +13.8
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 37.8m -20.9
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 34.1m
21
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.5

Highly efficient scoring and relentless hustle (+3.8) drove a stellar +7.5 overall rating. He consistently attacked favorable matchups and avoided the sloppy turnovers that often plague high-usage wings. Aggressive baseline cuts defined his offensive success and kept the defense rotating.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 34.1m -18.9
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 31.2m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Flawless offensive conversion was completely overshadowed by hidden negatives, pointing to severe defensive breakdowns or a high foul rate. Failing to anchor the defense effectively turned a perfect offensive box score into a net negative. Consistently biting on pump fakes defined his struggles on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 31.2m -17.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Joel Embiid 31.2m
26
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Sheer volume and an imposing defensive presence (+6.3) kept his impact firmly positive despite struggling with shot conversion. He forced the defense to collapse on him constantly, creating opportunities even when his own shot wasn't falling. Drawing double-teams in the post defined the offensive geometry for his team.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 31.2m -17.3
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

A catastrophic -11.2 impact driven by poor shot selection and a barrage of defensive mistakes. He bled value on both ends of the floor, failing to provide the 3-and-D stability expected of him. Forcing contested threes early in the clock defined his disastrous outing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 21.0m -11.7
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Inefficient perimeter shooting and a lack of secondary playmaking dragged his rating down. He struggled to find a rhythm offensively and couldn't generate enough defensive value to compensate. Over-dribbling into contested mid-range pull-ups defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 16.5m -9.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 14.8m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Clean offensive execution was entirely undone by poor positional awareness or rapid-fire fouls, plummeting his impact into the negatives. Failing to stay disciplined defensively erased any value his interior finishing provided. Getting consistently out-leveraged in the pick-and-roll defined his struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

Provided a stabilizing presence with solid rebounding and playmaking in limited minutes. He played within himself, avoiding costly mistakes to post a modest but positive impact. Smart connective passing from the high post defined his effective stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 10.7m -6.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Managed to rack up a -2.5 impact in just three minutes, indicating immediate and severe mistakes like quick fouls or blown coverages. This disastrously brief stint actively hurt the team's momentum. Completely losing his man on back-door cuts defined his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 36.4m
29
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.0

A dominant two-way performance anchored by aggressive interior positioning and elite defensive metrics (+6.4). His massive +20.5 box score impact was slightly tempered by high-usage inefficiency, but his sheer volume dictated the terms of engagement. Relentless rim protection against opposing bigs defined his massive influence on the matchup.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 61.6%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.4
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 36.4m -20.3
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 35.3m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Scoring volume was completely negated by poor ball security and defensive lapses that bled value. A stark contrast between his offensive production and a -2.2 overall impact suggests he gave back every point he scored through costly mistakes. His inability to stay disciplined in transition defense defined his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 35.3m -19.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 33.2m
9
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

Impact cratered by hidden mistakes, likely a barrage of live-ball turnovers or costly fouls that erased his stellar defensive metrics (+5.2). Despite clean perimeter execution, his inability to protect the basketball dragged his overall rating firmly into the red. A pattern of sloppy ball-handling under pressure defined his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 33.2m -18.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 24.3m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Elite defensive metrics (+4.4) and high-energy hustle plays were entirely undone by offensive ineptitude and a string of costly turnovers. His inability to generate positive momentum on the offensive end anchored his score at a dismal -8.2. A pattern of driving into traffic and losing possession completely derailed his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 24.3m -13.5
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Norman Powell 10.1m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Severe struggles with shot conversion combined with non-existent hustle stats doomed his brief stint on the floor. Without his usual scoring punch, a lack of secondary contributions left him as a severe net negative. Forced, contested jumpers early in the shot clock defined his poor offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 10.1m -5.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Herro 32.0m
25
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.5

High-volume playmaking and perimeter shot creation fueled a strong offensive showing, while surprising defensive engagement (+5.0) kept his overall impact positive. Aggressive shot selection yielded mixed results, but the sheer offensive pressure he applied dictated the game's tempo. A stretch of timely drive-and-kick reads in the second half defined his value.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 32.0m -17.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Solid two-way execution drove a positive rating, highlighted by strong defensive positioning (+6.8) and reliable shot selection. He avoided the catastrophic mistakes that plagued his teammates, providing steady, winning minutes. Exploiting mismatches in the mid-range defined his highly effective performance.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 30.2m -16.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Invisible on the offensive end and bleeding value through missed rotations or immediate fouls, resulting in a steep -6.1 impact. Failing to adapt to the game's pace made him a liability whenever he was on the floor. A pattern of getting caught ball-watching on defense defined his disastrous minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 17.1m -9.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 12.2m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish inside quickly drained his value during a short stint. A complete lack of playmaking or defensive deterrence left him unable to offset his offensive struggles. Getting consistently bullied out of rebounding position defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 12.2m -6.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Failed to make any meaningful imprint on the game, with low usage and minimal hustle stats keeping his impact slightly negative. He was essentially a placeholder on the court, offering no real resistance or offensive threat. A complete lack of aggression when attacking closeouts defined his passive performance.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 9.2m -5.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0