GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 37.6m
30
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Elite defensive disruption and relentless rim pressure salvaged a highly inefficient perimeter shooting night. He completely locked down his primary assignment during a crucial fourth-quarter run, generating steals that fueled the transition attack. The sheer volume of missed triples was offset by his aggressive downhill drives that consistently compromised the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 52.0%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +11.6
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 37.6m -24.4
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Quentin Grimes 35.5m
23
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

A frigid night from beyond the arc and forced mid-range jumpers dragged his net rating into negative territory. His inability to space the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint, stalling out several half-court sets. He maintained strong defensive intensity on the perimeter, but the offensive inefficiency ultimately outweighed his containment efforts.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 35.5m -22.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 34.5m
21
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.5

Relentless downhill attacking and secondary playmaking drove a highly productive shift. He consistently broke down the primary line of defense, forcing rotations that led to easy dump-offs for the bigs. Even with a shaky outside stroke, his ability to navigate traffic and finish through contact set a physical tone for the offense.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 34.5m -22.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 33.5m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Costly fouls and poor screen-setting angles undermined an otherwise active interior performance. Despite racking up impressive hustle metrics via contested rebounds, his tendency to bite on pump fakes compromised rim protection. A sequence of illegal screens in the third quarter killed offensive momentum and directly contributed to his negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +6.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 33.5m -21.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Adem Bona 15.8m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Foul trouble and missed defensive rotations limited his ability to anchor the second unit. He struggled to track lob threats out of the dunker spot, giving up easy vertical spacing to the opposing bigs. While he showed flashes of energetic rim protection, a lack of positional discipline kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 15.8m -10.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
32
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+34.3

A historically scorching shooting display from the perimeter single-handedly broke the opponent's defensive scheme. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages with masterful pace, punishing under-screens with immediate, lethal pull-up triples. Beyond the flawless shooting, his active hands in the passing lanes spearheaded a suffocating perimeter defense that triggered multiple fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 8/8 (100.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 126.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +36.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +11.0
Raw total +53.8
Avg player in 30.2m -19.5
Impact +34.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
Dalen Terry 22.0m
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

Errant passing and poor spatial awareness on offense severely damaged his overall impact. He frequently drove into crowded paint areas without a bailout plan, resulting in momentum-killing turnovers. Defensively, he struggled to navigate off-ball screens, consistently trailing his man and forcing the defense into emergency rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 5.2%
Net Rtg +44.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 22.0m -14.1
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Efficient interior finishing and smart connective passing highlighted a steady, low-mistake performance. He operated beautifully out of the short roll, making quick reads that kept the offense humming against blitzing schemes. A lack of elite rim protection limited his defensive ceiling, but he executed his schematic responsibilities without glaring errors.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 15.4m -10.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Brief playing time was marred by slow defensive processing and missed box-out assignments. He struggled to match the game's physicality during a brief second-quarter stint, allowing opponents to secure critical offensive boards. Offensive hesitancy further limited his ability to positively influence the game flow.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +30.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 9.3m -6.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

A highly passive offensive approach rendered him a non-factor during his short time on the floor. He deferred too quickly when catching the ball on the perimeter, allowing the defense to completely ignore him. While his defensive positioning was adequate, the lack of offensive gravity hurt the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +59.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 6.1m -4.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Perimeter inefficiency cratered his overall value, with multiple clanked above-the-break threes stalling out half-court sets. He struggled to contain dribble penetration during a pivotal second-quarter rotation, forcing the defense into constant scramble mode. The lack of interior aggression made him too easy to scheme against on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 25.3m -16.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ty Jerome 24.5m
26
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.7

High-volume shooting masked a somewhat hollow overall impact, as defensive passivity gave back much of his offensive production. He hunted his own shot effectively in pick-and-roll situations, but a tendency to over-dribble stagnated ball movement during late-clock scenarios. A second-half scoring flurry kept the offense afloat, though his inability to fight through screens hurt the team defensively.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 38.7%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 24.5m -15.9
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Cedric Coward 23.8m
13
pts
16
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Relentless positioning on the glass fueled a massive two-way impact, generating vital second-chance opportunities. He anchored the paint during a dominant fourth-quarter stretch, consistently altering shots as a weak-side helper. Crisp floor-spacing from the corners kept the driving lanes wide open for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.4
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 23.8m -15.3
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jaylen Wells 21.9m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Shot selection heavily dragged down his overall effectiveness, as he repeatedly forced contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock. Despite generating solid hustle metrics through loose ball recoveries, defensive miscommunications on the weak side negated those extra possessions. A crucial stretch of forced triples in the third quarter allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense -0.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 21.9m -14.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite point-of-attack defense defined his highly positive stint, completely neutralizing opposing wings in isolation. His impact soared thanks to disciplined closeouts and a refusal to bite on pump fakes, which anchored the team's half-court shell. Offensively, he capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely baseline cuts that required zero playcalling to execute.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +10.1
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 20.9m -13.5
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Offensive invisibility and spacing issues severely hampered his overall rating, allowing his defender to freely roam the paint. Even with high-energy hustle plays and deflections, his inability to navigate off-ball screens defensively created glaring mismatches. A brutal stretch of defensive misreads in the third quarter directly led to a barrage of uncontested corner threes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 27.1m -17.5
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Javon Small 25.9m
12
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.7

Careless ball security and forced entry passes completely derailed his playmaking contributions. His negative impact was heavily driven by live-ball turnovers that instantly translated into fast-break points for the opposition. A pattern of leaving his feet before making a passing decision repeatedly trapped him against aggressive hedging.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 25.9m -16.7
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
GG Jackson 24.8m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.0

Severe tunnel vision and ill-advised isolation attempts torpedoed his net impact despite respectable shooting splits. He consistently hijacked the offense by ignoring open shooters on the perimeter, leading to stagnant, low-quality possessions. Getting repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll drop coverage during the first half exacerbated his negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -41.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 24.8m -16.0
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
Cam Spencer 23.5m
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

Defensive limitations at the point of attack erased the value of his perimeter shot-making. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him in switch situations, easily blowing past his initial resistance to collapse the lane. While his off-ball gravity created some offensive flow, the constant need to send him help defense fractured the team's rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.5m -15.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 22.3m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Opportunistic cutting and decisive spot-up shooting maximized his offensive footprint without demanding touches. While his scoring efficiency surged, poor closeout angles on the perimeter allowed opponents to easily compromise the defensive shell. His ability to leak out early in transition during the second quarter created several easy scoring sequences.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 22.3m -14.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0