GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
17
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.8

Despite a sluggish shooting night, he manipulated the defense masterfully by drawing two to the ball and spraying passes to open shooters. His point-of-attack defense was surprisingly disruptive, fighting over screens to blow up pick-and-roll sets. He found alternative ways to dominate the game's flow when his primary scoring weapons misfired.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 31.2m -16.1
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S James Harden 29.1m
21
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

Dictated the half-court tempo with surgical precision, consistently identifying and exploiting mismatch switches on the perimeter. He supplemented his offensive orchestration with active hands in the post, stripping driving bigs to ignite the break. A vintage floor-general performance anchored by elite foul-drawing and pace control.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 29.1m -15.0
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 28.1m
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Completely erased the paint, utilizing his length to alter shots and clean up the glass on both ends. He generated immense value through vertical spacing and decisive rim-runs that collapsed the defense. The combination of elite rim deterrence and efficient interior finishing resulted in a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.6
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 28.1m -14.5
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Sam Merrill 20.6m
2
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.3

An ice-cold shooting night completely neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. Opponents aggressively top-locked him off screens, forcing him into uncomfortable playmaking situations that disrupted the offensive flow. Without the threat of his jumper falling, his overall impact cratered.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 20.6m -10.5
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dean Wade 20.2m
13
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

Anchored the frontcourt with flawless spatial awareness, hitting timely pick-and-pop threes to stretch the opposing defense. His fundamental box-outs neutralized the opponent's primary offensive rebounder, securing crucial extra possessions. A highly efficient, mistake-free outing that heavily drove winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +41.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 20.2m -10.4
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Keon Ellis 25.6m
19
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.0

Generated elite hustle metrics by relentlessly diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by burying transition threes, punishing the defense before it could set. An absolute masterclass in role-player impact, turning sheer effort into a massive scoreboard advantage.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +10.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 25.6m -13.2
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

Passed up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities, causing the offense to stagnate late in the shot clock. His inability to contain dribble penetration forced the frontline into foul trouble through constant emergency rotations. A passive offensive approach combined with leaky perimeter defense resulted in a severe negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 21.7m -11.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaylon Tyson 20.6m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Flashed promising shot-making ability from deep, but gave the value right back by forcing contested drives into heavy traffic. He competed admirably on the defensive end, staying attached to his man through off-ball screens. The erratic shot selection ultimately flattened out an otherwise energetic rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 20.6m -10.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.4

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to pressure the rim or initiate sets with any urgency. Opponents sagged off him aggressively, effectively playing five-on-four and bogging down the team's spacing. The lack of assertiveness derailed the second unit's rhythm entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 15.0m -7.7
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Overcame a clunky interior shooting night by stepping out and knocking down crucial trail threes to warp the opposing drop coverage. He set bruising screens to free up the guards and competed fiercely for 50/50 balls in the paint. The floor-stretching element provided just enough offensive gravity to swing his impact positive.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 12.6m -6.5
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggled to acclimate to the game's pace during a brief garbage-time appearance. He was caught ball-watching on two separate backdoor cuts, surrendering easy layups at the rim. A forgettable stint defined by defensive miscommunications.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 3.8m -2.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Made an immediate impression with hyper-active weak-side rotations that deterred a pair of late-game drives. He sprinted the floor hard in transition, sealing his man early to secure a quick bucket. Maximized a tiny window of playing time through sheer physical exertion.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 3.8m -2.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Looked a step slow in pick-and-roll coverage, allowing guards to turn the corner with minimal resistance. He failed to establish deep post position, rendering him a non-factor offensively. A brief, low-energy stint that bled points during a critical transition phase.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Confidently stepped into a spot-up three, demonstrating readiness despite the limited run. He maintained solid defensive positioning, refusing to bite on pump fakes against isolation attempts. A steady, mistake-free cameo that kept the team's momentum intact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 3.8m -1.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Quentin Grimes 36.1m
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Scoring volume disguised a highly inefficient perimeter performance characterized by settling for contested above-the-break threes. His defensive point-of-attack pressure was solid, but live-ball turnovers in the second half ignited opponent fast breaks. The aggressive shot selection ultimately yielded diminishing returns and dragged down the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 36.1m -18.6
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cameron Payne 27.6m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

A heavy dose of isolation floaters and off-balance triples severely dragged down his offensive efficiency. While he provided a spark with active hands in the passing lanes, his inability to orchestrate clean half-court sets stalled the second unit. The shot volume simply didn't match the quality of looks generated.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 27.6m -14.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Adem Bona 26.1m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite rim protection defined his night, as he deterred multiple drives and anchored the drop coverage beautifully. The defensive value was nearly erased on the other end by rushed interior attempts and bobbled entry passes in traffic. He generated stops but struggled to capitalize on the ensuing offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 26.1m -13.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 19.6m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Relentless activity on the offensive glass and timely deflections drove a massive hustle rating. However, his overall impact dipped slightly into the red due to a couple of costly moving screens and missed rotations in transition. Still, his physical interior presence disrupted several pick-and-roll sets during the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 19.6m -10.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 13.9m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Impact plummeted due to forced perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock that short-circuited the offense. He struggled to stay in front of dribble penetration, constantly requiring help rotations that left spot-up shooters wide open. A sharp regression from his recent efficient scoring stretch, defined by a total lack of offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 13.9m -7.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.7

A masterclass in offensive efficiency, punishing late closeouts with decisive catch-and-shoot daggers. He complemented the scoring burst with high-motor closeouts and disciplined weak-side tagging on defense. Breaking out of a recent slump, his premium shot selection was the catalyst for a highly positive shift.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 28.2m -14.5
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Bleeding value through poor spacing, he repeatedly clogged the driving lanes and bricked wide-open trail threes. He competed hard on the defensive glass, but his sluggish closeouts allowed spot-up shooters to find an early rhythm. A disjointed performance where the offensive limitations outweighed any rotational defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 20.1m -10.4
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Dalen Terry 19.1m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.4

Wreaked havoc as a free safety, generating deflections and turning defense into immediate transition opportunities. His willingness to crash the offensive glass kept multiple dying possessions alive. A perfectly balanced utility performance where high-energy plays directly fueled scoring runs.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 19.1m -9.8
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Provided exceptional weak-side rim help and blew up several dribble hand-offs to boost his defensive metrics. Unfortunately, his offensive execution was disastrous, marred by forced drives into traffic and errant perimeter attempts. The extreme two-way disparity resulted in a heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.7
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 17.2m -8.8
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Struggled to navigate space in pick-and-roll coverage, repeatedly getting caught in no-man's land against quicker guards. Although he secured his usual share of defensive boards, his inability to finish through contact around the rim left easy points on the board. The defensive immobility ultimately cost the team more than his rebounding gained.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 15.4m -7.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Maximized a brief rotational stint by making quick, decisive reads and spacing the floor perfectly from the corner. His switchability on the perimeter stifled two key isolation attempts during a crucial second-quarter run. Played entirely within himself, contributing positive value without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 12.2m -6.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.1

Delivered an explosive micro-shift, instantly changing the game's tempo with aggressive perimeter shot-making. He stayed locked in defensively during his brief run, perfectly executing a crucial trap that forced a shot-clock violation. Maximum impact condensed into a tiny rotational window.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 45.5%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 4.6m -2.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1