Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CLE lead DAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DAL 2P — 3P —
CLE 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Flagg 10/17 +3.8
Washington 8/16 +0.7
Marshall 8/12 +3.5
Nembhard Hard 4/10 +1.0
Middleton Hard 2/9 -3.4
Williams 4/7 +0.2
Poulakidas Hard 4/6 +5.0
Christie 3/4 +3.2
Bagley III 2/4 0.0
Martin Hard 1/2 +1.1

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell Hard 10/24 -0.6
Mobley Open 8/14 -1.3
Harden 4/12 -4.7
Strus Hard 7/9 +9.9
Wade 5/9 +1.9
Ellis Hard 2/7 -2.8
Schröder Open 4/5 +2.1
Bryant Hard 3/4 +3.9
Tomlin 2/4 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DAL
CLE
46/87 Field Goals 45/88
52.9% Field Goal % 51.1%
15/30 3-Pointers 16/41
50.0% 3-Point % 39.0%
23/27 Free Throws 14/21
85.2% Free Throw % 66.7%
65.7% True Shooting % 61.7%
50 Total Rebounds 46
9 Offensive 10
35 Defensive 28
35 Assists 32
2.69 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
12 Turnovers 16
13 Steals 5
5 Blocks 5
21 Fouls 21
52 Points in Paint 54
24 Fast Break Pts 14
25 Points off TOs 9
11 Second Chance Pts 9
38 Bench Points 46
21 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
P.J. Washington
20 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 33.4 MIN
+32.66
2
Naji Marshall
25 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 32.0 MIN
+24.49
3
Max Strus
24 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 22.9 MIN
+22.43
4
Donovan Mitchell
26 PTS · 1 REB · 11 AST · 39.1 MIN
+21.34
5
Cooper Flagg
27 PTS · 6 REB · 10 AST · 32.8 MIN
+19.08
6
Brandon Williams
12 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 23.7 MIN
+16.51
7
Max Christie
9 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 29.3 MIN
+14.43
8
Evan Mobley
18 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 36.0 MIN
+11.77
9
Ryan Nembhard
11 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 24.3 MIN
+11.44
10
Dean Wade
12 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 26.3 MIN
+9.56
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:15 DAL shot clock Team TURNOVER 130–120
Q4 0:39 TEAM defensive REBOUND 130–120
Q4 0:40 MISS J. Harden 25' 3PT 130–120
Q4 0:47 E. Mobley REBOUND (Off:3 Def:8) 130–120
Q4 0:49 MISS C. Flagg 25' pullup 3PT 130–120
Q4 1:11 D. Mitchell driving finger roll Layup (26 PTS) (J. Harden 7 AST) 130–120
Q4 1:19 C. Flagg Free Throw 2 of 2 (27 PTS) 130–118
Q4 1:19 TEAM offensive REBOUND 129–118
Q4 1:19 MISS C. Flagg Free Throw 1 of 2 129–118
Q4 1:19 M. Strus personal FOUL (5 PF) (Flagg 2 FT) 129–118
Q4 1:20 N. Marshall REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 129–118
Q4 1:22 MISS D. Mitchell 25' 3PT 129–118
Q4 1:34 C. Flagg 6' driving floating Jump Shot (26 PTS) 129–118
Q4 1:44 E. Mobley alley-oop DUNK (18 PTS) (D. Mitchell 11 AST) 127–118
Q4 1:49 J. Harden REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 127–116

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
26
pts
1
reb
11
ast
Impact
+14.5

High-usage shot creation fueled the offense, even if the efficiency wavered during isolation-heavy possessions. He generated massive value by aggressively attacking the rim and collapsing the defense to create kick-out opportunities. Active hands and relentless point-of-attack pressure on defense ensured his overall contribution remained firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S James Harden 37.5m
13
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-11.5

Impact plummeted due to a stagnant offensive approach and a barrage of contested, low-percentage perimeter heaves. He routinely stalled the offense by over-dribbling at the top of the key, allowing the defense to set up and anticipate his passing angles. The resulting empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent resulted in a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Evan Mobley 36.0m
18
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

Solid interior finishing and rim protection were overshadowed by costly positional mistakes during crucial late-game stretches. He struggled to navigate complex pick-and-roll coverages, often dropping too deep and surrendering uncontested midrange pull-ups. The raw production was there, but the timing of his defensive lapses dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +11.1
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 4
S Keon Ellis 31.4m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

A complete lack of offensive rhythm severely damaged his overall impact, as he repeatedly bricked open perimeter looks. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, which cramped the spacing for the primary creators. Despite decent effort on loose balls, his inability to make defenses pay for sagging off him was a fatal flaw.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dean Wade 26.3m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Finding a sudden offensive groove wasn't enough to overcome his struggles containing dribble penetration. He repeatedly got caught flat-footed on defensive switches, allowing guards to turn the corner and compromise the paint. The scoring surge was a welcome surprise, but he gave it all back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Strus 22.9m
24
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.2

An absolute flamethrower from beyond the arc, he completely warped the opponent's defensive geometry with his lethal catch-and-shoot gravity. Defenders panicked on his off-ball screens, creating massive driving lanes for his teammates. This elite floor-spacing clinic single-handedly drove his massive positive impact rating.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 111.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +9.2
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.5

Surgical precision in the mid-range game provided a steadying presence, but defensive limitations against bigger guards erased those gains. He struggled to fight through screens, forcing teammates into unfavorable rotation scenarios that yielded easy baskets. A highly efficient offensive night was ultimately neutralized by his vulnerabilities at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Struggled to adapt to the speed of the game, frequently finding himself a half-step late on weak-side defensive rotations. His inability to secure contested rebounds gave the opposition crucial second-chance opportunities. While he didn't force things offensively, the defensive bleeding during his stint resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Maximized every second of his brief floor time by sealing hard in the paint and finishing with authority. He provided a sudden jolt of interior physicality, bullying backup bigs for deep post position. His energetic rim-running and decisive finishing made him a highly effective spark plug off the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 33.4m
20
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+31.0

Defensive dominance completely dictated his massive net impact rating. He blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions and generated crucial extra possessions through sheer hustle. By pairing elite rim protection with timely perimeter closeouts, he anchored the entire rotation while still providing a reliable scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +14.0
Defense +10.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cooper Flagg 32.8m
27
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+10.0

Despite a dominant offensive rhythm that yielded a high raw box score, his overall net impact was muted by empty possessions and defensive transition lapses. He thrived in isolation sets against smaller defenders, maintaining his recent elite baseline of offensive production. Cleaning up the live-ball mistakes would elevate this from a good game to a truly dominant one.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +21.3
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Naji Marshall 32.0m
25
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+19.3

Exceptional shot selection fueled a massive positive impact on the offensive end. He consistently attacked favorable matchups on the perimeter, capitalizing on defensive rotations to generate high-value looks. A steady defensive presence ensured his scoring burst translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Max Christie 29.3m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.8

A low-usage, highly efficient approach kept his baseline impact positive without demanding the basketball. His value came primarily from disciplined weak-side defensive rotations that stifled opponent driving lanes. He played within the flow of the offense perfectly, taking only high-percentage looks when the defense collapsed.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ryan Nembhard 24.3m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

An aggressive perimeter shooting display generated a surprising offensive surge, though it didn't translate into a positive overall impact. Defensive miscommunications and mistimed gambles in the passing lanes allowed the opposition to claw back the value he created offensively. His willingness to take open shots was a positive development despite the slight net-negative result.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.5

Forced jumpers and a glaring inability to separate from primary defenders tanked his offensive value. His struggles to convert in isolation bogged down the half-court offense, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition attacks. While he competed defensively, the sheer volume of clanked shots created a massive deficit.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.1

Relentless energy on loose balls and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly efficient two-way performance. He consistently pressured the rim in transition, forcing defensive collapses that opened up the floor. This gritty, high-motor style perfectly complemented the primary scorers and solidified the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.7

Impact cratered due to an inability to establish deep post position, severely limiting his offensive gravity. He struggled to anchor the paint during a rough second-quarter stretch, allowing opponents to score too easily at the rim. The lack of offensive volume combined with interior defensive leaks resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Capitalized beautifully on spot-up opportunities, punishing defenders who sagged off him to help inside. His decisive trigger from beyond the arc provided a much-needed spacing dynamic during the middle quarters. He survived defensively just enough to ensure his offensive burst resulted in a net positive.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

Limited floor time prevented him from establishing any real rhythm or significantly altering the game's momentum. He provided a brief spark with decisive perimeter shooting, but defensive spacing errors during his short stint dragged his net rating into the red. A non-factor overall due to the abbreviated rotational look.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.0

Only saw the floor for a fleeting moment at the end of a rotation cycle. He executed his screening assignments cleanly without forcing any action. The sample size was simply too small to generate any meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0