GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 37.9m
25
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.1

Relentless offensive aggression forced the defense into constant rotation, even with his jumper misfiring. Exceptional hustle metrics (+5.7) and highly disruptive perimeter defense (+7.8) proved his motor never stopped running.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.8
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 37.9m -19.0
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Quentin Grimes 31.1m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Strong interior finishing offset a brutal perimeter shooting slump. His persistent point-of-attack defense (+3.8) ensured he remained a net positive despite the spacing issues he created on offense.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 31.1m -15.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Adem Bona 28.7m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Dominated the paint through sheer physicality and relentless rim-running. His ability to finish through contact while simultaneously erasing shots on the other end (+6.9) created a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 28.7m -14.4
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 25.3m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite defensive rotations (+8.0) were entirely wasted by clunky offensive execution. He consistently stalled half-court sets by forcing tough interior looks against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +8.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 25.3m -12.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Trendon Watford 22.4m
7
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Solid connective passing and sturdy positional defense (+3.6) kept his overall rating slightly in the green. A complete lack of perimeter spacing, however, allowed his defender to heavily pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.4m -11.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
22
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

Catching fire from the perimeter completely stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. This massive, unexpected scoring surge broke the game open and generated a staggering box score impact (+18.6).

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 28.1m -14.0
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Forced contested jumpers led directly to empty offensive possessions. A negative box score impact heavily outweighed his decent defensive effort on the wing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 18.9m -9.5
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Smart off-ball cutting and active perimeter defense (+4.5) created a highly efficient two-way stint. He perfectly executed his role as a connective piece without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 15.2m -7.5
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverage and forced shots around the basket dragged down the second unit. His inability to finish cleanly inside allowed the opponent to easily leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 13.2m -6.6
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Offensive rhythm vanished completely during his brief stint running the point. High hustle metrics (+3.4) couldn't salvage the empty scoring possessions resulting from his perimeter bricks.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 10.1m -5.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 9.2m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Failed to generate any offensive advantage while operating as the primary ball-handler. A total lack of hustle plays (+0.0) and stagnant perimeter movement compounded the highly ineffective performance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -50.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 9.2m -4.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 30.5m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

Shot selection completely derailed his overall impact. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock resulted in a brutal string of empty possessions that his solid defensive metrics (+3.9) couldn't salvage.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 30.5m -15.3
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Keyonte George 30.2m
30
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Massive offensive usage masked a highly inefficient perimeter shooting display. His relentless downhill aggression forced the defense into constant rotation, though the sheer volume of missed jumpers capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 30.2m -15.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 28.1m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

A sharp drop in offensive volume was mitigated by excellent off-ball activity. His defensive rotations (+3.8) and consistent hustle plays kept the second unit afloat despite a quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 28.1m -14.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 22.4m
6
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

Elite rim deterrence (+4.0) anchored the defense during his minutes on the floor. Even though his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent games, he maintained high efficiency by strictly taking high-percentage looks in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 22.4m -11.2
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Elijah Harkless 19.8m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Exceptional hustle metrics (+5.1) were entirely undone by a disastrous offensive stint. He stalled half-court sets with forced, contested jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 19.8m -9.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.4

Relentless rim pressure and disruptive point-of-attack defense (+7.1) fueled a stellar two-way rating. By completely abandoning the three-point line, he optimized his shot diet and collapsed the defense on nearly every possession.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 25.9m -12.9
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
Mo Bamba 20.9m
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Dominant paint protection (+7.2) defined his highly effective stint. He completely shut down the restricted area, allowing his low-usage offensive role to remain a net positive for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 20.9m -10.5
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Disastrous shot selection completely tanked his offensive rhythm. Chucking contested perimeter looks early in the clock resulted in a massive negative swing that derailed the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.1%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 19.8m -9.8
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Blake Hinson 19.0m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Pure spacing gravity generated wide-open driving lanes for his teammates. While his perimeter marksmanship stretched the floor beautifully, a near-total lack of defensive or hustle contributions limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 19.0m -9.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 18.9m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Total offensive invisibility created a massive void on the perimeter. Failing to register a single productive drive or shot attempt allowed defenders to completely sag off him and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 18.9m -9.5
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Hyper-efficient finishing around the basket maximized his extremely brief stint on the floor. However, sluggish pick-and-roll coverage (-0.5) kept him on a very short leash.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 4.7m -2.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1