GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 38.3m
19
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+0.9

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration generated high-quality looks for the bigs, but his own isolation inefficiency limited the ceiling of his impact. He struggled to create separation against switching defenses, resulting in forced, late-clock jumpers that bailed out the opponent. Surprisingly active hands in the passing lanes (+2.4 Def) kept his overall contribution slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 38.3m -17.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
30
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.7

Elite point-of-attack defense (+6.7 Def) sparked transition opportunities, transforming defensive stops into immediate offense. He relentlessly attacked the paint, drawing defensive attention that opened up the floor for his teammates. This masterclass in two-way aggression completely overwhelmed the opposing backcourt and defined the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.7%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 33.5m -14.9
Impact +18.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Evan Mobley 31.1m
24
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.3

Utterly dominated the interior with elite rim protection (+6.2 Def) while simultaneously expanding his offensive repertoire. He confidently stepped into perimeter shots and finished through contact, punishing smaller defenders in the post. His two-way versatility dictated the terms of engagement for both teams and drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 31.1m -13.9
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 29.1m
5
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.8

A disastrous shooting slump from his primary spots completely neutralized his value as a movement shooter. Opponents ignored him off the ball, which clogged driving lanes and stalled the half-court offense. Without his typical spacing gravity, his minutes were a massive net negative despite decent secondary playmaking.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 29.1m -12.9
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dean Wade 20.6m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-level rotational defense and constant effort plays (+4.3 Hustle) anchored his highly effective stint. He didn't demand the ball, instead finding value through timely cuts and solid positional rebounding against larger matchups. His low-maintenance, mistake-free execution provided essential glue for the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 20.6m -9.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 25.3m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Offensive hesitation and a failure to convert open spot-up opportunities allowed the defense to cheat off him. While he crashed the glass adequately, his lack of burst off the dribble resulted in stagnant, late-clock possessions. He struggled to find a rhythm within the flow of the offense, dragging down the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 25.3m -11.3
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 24.1m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

An absolute terror in terms of pure energy, generating a massive +9.1 hustle rating through deflections and loose ball recoveries. His total offensive invisibility meant the team essentially played 4-on-5 on that end, severely cramping the floor. The sheer volume of his disruptive defensive plays just barely outweighed his offensive zeroes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 1.9%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +9.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 24.1m -10.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Pounded the air out of the ball without generating any meaningful penetration, stalling the second unit's offense. His inability to hit shots or bend the defense allowed opponents to stay home on shooters. A severe lack of offensive creation and poor finishing at the rim resulted in a highly detrimental performance.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 20.4m -9.1
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Forcing outside shots rather than playing to his interior strengths completely derailed his offensive rhythm. He failed to establish deep post position and was easily moved off his spots by more physical bigs. The resulting empty possessions and poor shot selection heavily penalized his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 13.6m -6.1
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Barely registered a pulse during garbage time minutes, failing to attempt a shot or initiate any offense. He was a passive participant who merely moved the ball around the perimeter without probing the defense. His brief appearance was defined by a complete lack of aggression.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -51.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 4.0m -1.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 37.8m
23
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.0

Heavy offensive creation yielded a flat net rating due to a high volume of missed mid-range attempts that bailed out the defense. He ate up possessions without generating a distinct advantage, struggling to find a rhythm against set half-court coverages. While his playmaking reads were sharp, a lack of disruptive defensive plays kept his overall impact perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 37.8m -16.9
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Neemias Queta 35.9m
4
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

A stark drop-off in interior finishing severely penalized his offensive value after a highly efficient stretch of games. While his rim protection and rebounding were formidable (+4.2 Def), his inability to convert high-percentage looks allowed the defense to sag into the paint. Those empty offensive possessions ultimately cratered his net impact despite his physical presence.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 35.9m -16.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 35.6m
6
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.1

Exceptional hustle (+5.8) and crisp defensive rotations couldn't salvage an abysmal shooting night from beyond the arc. He routinely generated extra possessions through sheer effort, but his inability to punish closeouts stalled the half-court offense. The resulting lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint, dragging his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 35.6m -15.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jayson Tatum 27.0m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Impact was muted by settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than pressuring the rim. A heavy volume of missed deep looks allowed the defense to leak out in transition, neutralizing his overall offensive footprint. His defensive engagement was merely passable, leaving him without a defining stretch to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 27.0m -12.0
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 24.4m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite spacing gravity defined his minutes as he relentlessly punished defensive rotations with lethal catch-and-shoot execution. Opponents were forced to stay glued to him on the perimeter, which opened up driving lanes for the primary creators. Strong positional awareness on the other end (+2.4 Def) proved he can survive defensively when targeted in switches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 24.4m -10.9
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.2

Relentless point-of-attack penetration and decisive decision-making drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He constantly broke down the defensive shell, balancing his own scoring with sharp distribution to keep the offense humming. Feisty on-ball pressure (+2.1 Def) ensured he wasn't a liability on the other end, cementing a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 34.8m -15.5
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.2

An absolute eruption in shooting efficiency completely warped the opposing defensive scheme and fueled a massive positive swing. He dominated the glass from the wing and provided surprisingly stout perimeter resistance (+4.8 Def) to complement his outside barrage. This two-way breakout performance was the defining catalyst for the second unit's dominance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 25.8m -11.5
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 11.7m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Defensive mobility issues (-1.3 Def) were repeatedly exploited in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points during his brief stint. He capitalized on his few offensive touches with good touch, but failed to secure the defensive glass against more athletic bigs. The structural defensive compromises required to keep him on the floor outweighed his scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.3
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 11.7m -5.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, offering zero offensive threat while getting targeted on the perimeter. His inability to stay in front of his man (-1.2 Def) forced the defense into constant, scrambling rotations. A non-factor on both ends who actively hurt the team's spacing and defensive shell during his short run.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 7.1m -3.1
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0