GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 35.4m
18
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.6

A heavy diet of stagnant, late-clock isolations led to brutal shooting efficiency and a steep -8.6 net impact. He routinely settled for contested step-back threes rather than pressuring the rim, allowing the defense to rest. While his playmaking vision remains intact, the sheer volume of wasted possessions dragged down the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 35.4m -19.0
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaylon Tyson 31.9m
22
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.4

High-volume perimeter shooting generated plenty of raw production, but defensive lapses in transition severely muted his overall impact. He consistently punished drop coverage with deep pull-ups, though his tendency to leak out early compromised the defensive glass. The scoring explosion was largely offset by what he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 31.9m -17.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Evan Mobley 31.6m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Exceptional spatial awareness on defense and timely weak-side blocks anchored a highly positive two-way performance. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, continuing a streak of elite efficiency by finishing strong through contact. His ability to switch onto guards late in the shot clock completely stifled the opponent's primary actions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.9
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 31.6m -17.0
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 27.0m
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Relentless off-ball movement generated solid hustle metrics, but a string of forced, off-balance jumpers ultimately hurt the offensive flow. Defenders aggressively chased him off the line, resulting in rushed decisions and poor shot quality. His defensive effort was commendable, yet it couldn't overcome the inefficiency of his offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 27.0m -14.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jarrett Allen 20.5m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Foul trouble and poor positioning against physical post matchups limited his effectiveness and cut his minutes short. While he still provided solid rim deterrence when on the floor, his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds gave opponents crucial second-chance opportunities. The sharp drop in offensive involvement further dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 20.5m -11.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

Despite a highly efficient scoring surge fueled by sharp pick-and-roll navigation, his defensive limitations were routinely exploited. Opposing guards targeted him on switches, easily blowing past his initial containment to collapse the defense. The offensive bounce-back was ultimately overshadowed by the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 28.4m -15.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 26.5m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Struggled to find his rhythm offensively, bricking several wide-open looks from the corner that stalled momentum. His point-of-attack defense remained tenacious, navigating screens well to bother ball-handlers. However, his hesitance to attack closeouts allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 26.5m -14.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
0.0

Excellent positional rebounding from the backcourt stabilized the defense, resulting in a perfectly neutral net impact. He struggled to finish through contact in the paint, missing several floaters he typically converts. Still, his willingness to crash the glass and initiate early offense kept the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.3m -12.0
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Stretched the floor effectively as a trailing big, punishing late defensive rotations with timely perimeter shooting. His energetic rim protection and verticality in the paint drove a highly positive +5.8 impact in limited action. He maximized his minutes by executing his role flawlessly without forcing unnecessary post-ups.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 16.3m -8.6
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 38.8m
10
pts
6
reb
14
ast
Impact
-17.7

Disastrous shot selection and forced attempts in traffic cratered his net impact to a team-worst -17.7. While he successfully manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to find open teammates, his own inability to finish at the rim allowed the defense to sag off. Empty possessions piled up as he repeatedly settled for contested pull-ups.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 38.8m -20.8
Impact -17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Duncan Robinson 34.2m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Despite commendable effort fighting through screens and closing out on shooters, his inability to find daylight off the ball severely limited his value. Opponents aggressively top-sided his routes, forcing him into a passive offensive role. The lack of scoring gravity ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 34.2m -18.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ausar Thompson 31.2m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.6

Elite defensive disruption and relentless activity on the glass fueled a massive +16.6 overall impact. He consistently beat his man to loose balls and converted transition opportunities at a highly efficient rate. His point-of-attack pressure completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +12.6
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 31.2m -16.7
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 30.9m
19
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

A steady diet of mid-post isolations generated reliable offense, though his tunnel vision as a scorer capped his overall ceiling. Defensive lapses in weak-side rotation dragged down an otherwise highly efficient shooting night. He capitalized on favorable matchups but failed to elevate his teammates.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 30.9m -16.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 26.5m
24
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.5

Absolute dominance in the restricted area drove a stellar +13.5 net impact, as he bullied opposing bigs for deep post position. His catch-and-finish reliability continues a remarkable stretch of interior efficiency. Rim deterrence and quick second jumps on the offensive glass made him impossible to contain.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 26.5m -14.3
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Sturdy post defense and physical screen-setting kept him afloat, but his offensive invisibility dragged his overall score into the red. He struggled to establish meaningful positioning against quicker frontcourt assignments. A lack of roll gravity allowed defenders to easily recover and blow up perimeter actions.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 22.4m -12.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities to break out of a recent shooting slump, though his overall footprint remained muted. Defensive hesitation on the perimeter negated the value of his efficient offensive touches. He found success attacking closeouts but needs to process defensive rotations faster to generate a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -42.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 18.9m -10.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 13.2m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

A complete lack of energy and multiple blown defensive assignments led to a rapid -8.1 bleed in limited minutes. He repeatedly stalled the offense with stagnant isolation attempts that ended in contested long-range misses. Opposing guards easily blew past him at the point of attack, compounding his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 13.2m -7.1
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.2

Provided an immediate scoring spark by aggressively hunting his shot in early offense situations. His confident stroke from deep punished defenders who went under screens, driving a highly efficient offensive burst. While his defensive metrics were pedestrian, his shot-making alone tilted the math heavily in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 13.1m -7.0
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Relegated to a minor role after a string of high-scoring performances, his rhythm was visibly disrupted by the lack of touches. Poor defensive engagement and slow closeouts allowed opponents to exploit his side of the floor. He failed to leave a mark during his brief stint, floating on the perimeter rather than forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 10.9m -5.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0