GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 25.1m
21
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Carried a massive offensive burden, using his blazing speed to constantly tilt the defense and create advantages. While his efficiency dipped due to forcing a few heavily contested floaters, his aggressive point-of-attack defense (+6.3 Def) was a revelation. He set the tone by fighting over screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -62.1
+/- -36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 25.1m -13.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Quentin Grimes 21.8m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Bricking open spot-up looks severely hampered the team's spacing and allowed his matchup to freely roam as a free safety. He tried to compensate with high-energy closeouts and loose ball recoveries (+3.9 Hustle), but the offensive dead weight was too heavy. The inability to punish defensive collapses ultimately tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -72.3
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 21.8m -11.8
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 19.6m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Elite perimeter ball pressure (+5.2 Def) kept his impact near neutral despite a disastrous shooting performance. He consistently blew past his primary defender but failed to finish through contact at the rim. The defensive intensity was commendable, yet the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions capped his value.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 19.6m -10.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 13.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

Forced several ill-advised shots in traffic that directly ignited the opponent's fast break. His timing as a roll man was completely out of sync, clogging the paint rather than creating vertical spacing. Despite decent effort on the glass, his offensive inefficiency created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -126.7
+/- -38
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 13.0m -7.1
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Settling for inexplicable perimeter jumpers completely derailed the offensive flow during his brief minutes. He abandoned his typical rim-running role, which bailed out the opposing interior defense and led to empty trips. Poor pick-and-roll positioning (-1.9 Def) compounded the damage on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -140.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.9
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 5.2m -2.9
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.3

Sunk by off-ball defensive lapses and poor closeout angles that consistently compromised the team's shell. He knocked down his spot-up opportunities at a high clip, but gave those points right back by losing his man on back-door cuts. The scoring efficiency was a mirage masking significant structural breakdowns on defense.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 26.5m -14.2
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Tremendous hustle (+6.8) and pesky perimeter defense nearly salvaged a night plagued by erratic shot selection. He fell in love with deep, early-clock pull-ups that functioned as live-ball turnovers when they missed. The chaotic energy he provided was a double-edged sword that ultimately resulted in a flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 25.8m -14.0
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

A classic case of defensive versatility (+6.2 Def) being completely overshadowed by offensive ineptitude. He short-circuited multiple possessions by hesitating on open perimeter looks before driving into traffic. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the opposing rim protector to camp in the paint unchallenged.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 25.6m -13.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Adem Bona 22.1m
6
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Likely bled value through moving screens and defensive miscommunications that don't always show up in the basic box score. He finished his spoon-fed looks around the basket but struggled to navigate complex pick-and-roll coverages in space. The opponent repeatedly targeted his heavy feet on the perimeter to generate open looks.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 22.1m -12.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.9

An absolute revelation as a secondary scorer, punishing mismatches in the post and trailing the play for open triples. He consistently found the soft spots in the opponent's zone coverage, providing a massive pressure release valve for the guards. This hyper-efficient scoring punch single-handedly propped up the second unit's offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 19.5m -10.6
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Played a gritty, glue-guy role with excellent rotational defense (+3.1 Def) and a willingness to dive for loose balls. However, his hesitance to attack closeouts bogged down the offensive flow and led to late-clock grenades. He survived his minutes through sheer effort, but the lack of offensive gravity kept his impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 19.5m -10.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dalen Terry 16.4m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Completely derailed the offensive rhythm by forcing wild, off-balance drives into heavy traffic. His length and anticipation created genuine havoc on the defensive end (+3.8 Def), blowing up several passing lanes. Unfortunately, his inability to convert those defensive stops into efficient transition points resulted in a net negative performance.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 16.4m -8.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
10
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.7

Offensive volume plummeted, but his staggering defensive metrics (+19.9 Def) anchored the entire scheme. He completely deterred rim attempts during his stints, forcing opponents into low-percentage, late-clock jumpers. His elite rim protection and hustle plays proved he can dominate a game without high shot volume.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +75.8
+/- +41
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +7.5
Defense +19.9
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 24.1m -13.1
Impact +17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 6
TO 3
S Devin Vassell 22.6m
22
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.0

An absolute flamethrower from the perimeter whose elite shot selection drove a massive positive impact. His ability to punish defensive drop coverage with pull-up threes completely warped the opponent's scheme. Active hands on the perimeter (+5.5 Def) ensured his offensive explosion wasn't given back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +84.0
+/- +43
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 22.6m -12.2
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Despite decent shooting splits, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses in transition and likely empty possessions. He failed to establish a rhythm as a floor spacer during the second-half rotation. The lack of secondary playmaking limited his utility when run off the three-point line.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 21.6m -11.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 21.0m
15
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+8.1

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense drove his high box score impact. He consistently collapsed the defense on drives to spray out to shooters, generating high-quality looks for the second unit. While his point-of-attack defense was merely average, his elite decision-making kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +79.6
+/- +39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 21.0m -11.4
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 21.0m
11
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.0

Dictated the tempo perfectly by weaponizing his elite downhill speed to create advantages. His defensive engagement (+4.4 Def) at the point of attack disrupted the opponent's offensive flow early in the shot clock. Even on a moderate shooting night, his pace-pushing generated easy transition opportunities that buoyed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +50.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 21.0m -11.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.2

Slipped into the red despite a massive shooting spike because of costly rotational mistakes and poor closeouts that fueled opponent runs. He provided a great spark as a trail shooter in semi-transition, punishing late defensive rotations. However, giving up straight-line drives on the other end negated his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 25.6m -13.9
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

A completely neutral overall impact where rugged defensive rebounding and physical containment (+7.2 Def) canceled out offensive spacing issues. Missing all of his perimeter looks allowed defenders to sag and clog the driving lanes. His bullish drives generated some momentum, but the lack of an outside threat capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.2
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.2m -12.0
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Dylan Harper 21.7m
22
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Slicing through the defense with highly efficient interior finishing propelled his strong offensive rating. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications during pick-and-roll sequences to find easy angles at the rim. The defensive impact was muted, but his sheer scoring gravity kept the opposing bench unit on its heels.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 21.7m -11.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Provided a crucial injection of off-ball movement that stretched the defense, even if the jumper was streaky. His defensive rotations (+3.6 Def) were sharp, consistently stunting into driving lanes to deter penetration. The willingness to take contested shots at the end of the clock salvaged several broken possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 12.3m -6.6
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Struggled to anchor the drop coverage effectively, allowing guards to turn the corner too easily (-1.1 Def). While he converted his few dump-off opportunities around the basket, his lack of mobility in space was targeted repeatedly in the pick-and-roll. The inability to contest without fouling dragged his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 12.0m -6.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Impact cratered due to poor shot selection and an inability to break down his primary defender off the dribble. He stalled the offense by over-dribbling at the top of the key, leading to late-clock, heavily contested heaves. A few scrappy hustle plays couldn't offset the dead-end possessions he orchestrated.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 12.0m -6.5
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kelly Olynyk 12.0m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

A completely invisible offensive stint where his reluctance to shoot allowed the defense to ignore him entirely. He failed to leverage his typical playmaking from the elbows, resulting in stagnant half-court sets. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, the paint became a parking lot for the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 12.0m -6.5
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kornet 11.9m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Played a highly specialized, low-usage role that yielded a modest positive impact through positional discipline. His value came entirely from verticality at the rim and setting solid, bone-crushing screens to free up ball handlers. He didn't force any offense, simply taking what the defense conceded while maintaining structural integrity in the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 11.9m -6.5
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0