GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Quentin Grimes 39.5m
31
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.4

An absolute masterclass in two-way wing play, driven by suffocating perimeter defense and relentless downhill attacking. He completely locked up his primary assignment while simultaneously carving up the mid-range on the other end. His elite screen navigation and physical drives dictated the terms of the game for nearly forty minutes.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense +10.5
Raw total +38.5
Avg player in 39.5m -22.1
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 35.0m
18
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Ferocious rebounding and transition opportunism kept his rating positive despite a clunky shooting night. He forced the issue too often in half-court isolation, leading to several contested bricks. However, his sheer athleticism and second-effort plays salvaged possessions that would have otherwise died.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 35.0m -19.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Justin Edwards 25.0m
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Decisive slashing and confident stroke mechanics powered a breakout offensive performance. He relentlessly attacked rotating defenses, exploiting gaps before the help could arrive. Coupling that downhill aggression with disciplined on-ball defense cemented a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 25.0m -13.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 20.9m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

High-motor rim runs and switchable defensive versatility made him an absolute menace in the frontcourt. He consistently beat his man down the floor to establish deep position or alter shots in transition. This relentless energy on both ends created a massive positive differential.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.5
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 20.9m -11.7
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Adem Bona 13.2m
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Rushed attempts in the paint and poor touch around the basket neutralized his solid defensive positioning. He struggled to anchor his base against heavier bigs, leading to empty offensive trips. While he contested well vertically, the lack of offensive polish kept his impact submerged.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 13.2m -7.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
17
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

Utter dominance on the defensive glass masked a highly inefficient performance around the rim. He repeatedly missed point-blank bunnies, squandering the extra possessions he worked so hard to generate. While he walled off the paint defensively, the offensive clumsiness resulted in a perfectly flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +10.4
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 34.8m -19.3
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Passive offensive positioning allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. He hesitated when catching the ball on the perimeter, completely killing any built-up advantage. This lack of offensive gravity outweighed a handful of solid hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.1m -15.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Errant decision-making in the pick-and-roll bogged down the second unit's offensive rhythm. He settled for tricky, off-balance floaters instead of keeping the ball moving to open shooters. A few timely defensive rotations weren't enough to compensate for the stalled offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 20.1m -11.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his stint, as he failed to bend the defense or capitalize on open space. He was essentially ignored by opposing schemes, allowing them to play five-on-four on that end. Energetic closeouts provided a minor defensive boost, but the offensive zero was too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 14.4m -8.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kyle Lowry 5.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Uncharacteristic sluggishness at the point of attack allowed guards to turn the corner on him immediately. He failed to organize the offense during his brief appearance, leading to stagnant possessions. The veteran simply couldn't find the pace of the game before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 5.2m -2.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brief, disjointed cameo featured rushed decisions and zero offensive rhythm. He forced a bad look early in the shot clock rather than letting the play develop. The short leash prevented him from settling into the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 4.9m -2.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 38.2m
25
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
-5.5

Forcing the issue from beyond the arc severely damaged his overall efficiency, as he repeatedly settled for contested deep looks early in the shot clock. His secondary playmaking and excellent weak-side defensive rotations kept him somewhat afloat. Ultimately, the sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions capped his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.7
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 38.2m -21.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 7
S Jerami Grant 31.5m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Sizzling isolation shot-making inflated his offensive metrics, but a lack of rotational awareness on the other end dragged down his total rating. He operated almost exclusively as a perimeter spot-up threat, neglecting the dirty work inside. Giving up straight-line drives defensively negated his hot hand from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 31.5m -17.5
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 31.1m
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.3

A brutal perimeter shooting slump tanked his overall impact despite solid defensive engagement. Settling for heavily contested looks from deep completely disrupted the offensive flow. The resulting empty possessions overshadowed his reliable point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 31.1m -17.3
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 27.7m
11
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.9

Dominant rim protection and relentless glass-cleaning fueled a massive positive swing whenever he anchored the paint. Even with a few clunky attempts from the perimeter, his sheer physical presence deterred countless drives. Controlling the defensive interior completely dictated the tempo during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +11.6
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 27.7m -15.4
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jrue Holiday 24.3m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.1

An uncharacteristically flat offensive outing saw him bricking open rhythm jumpers, severely stalling the half-court execution. While he maintained his usual defensive discipline, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his overall rating into the red. His inability to punish drop coverage allowed the opposition to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 24.3m -13.4
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Inability to finish through contact at the rim torpedoed his offensive value, negating a highly active defensive performance. He consistently broke down the primary defender but failed to convert in traffic. Those blown layups sparked transition opportunities going the other way, suppressing his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 24.3m -13.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.5

Elite vertical spacing and tremendous weak-side shot deterrence drove a highly impactful stint. He completely sealed off the restricted area, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Operating strictly within his role offensively allowed his defensive dominance to shine through.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.2
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 20.3m -11.3
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 14.7m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Floating through his minutes without leaving a tangible imprint on either end resulted in a negative swing. A lack of aggression in attacking closeouts made him easy to ignore in half-court sets. He simply didn't generate enough defensive friction or offensive gravity to justify his court time.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 14.7m -8.2
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Disruptive activity in the passing lanes generated crucial transition opportunities and kept his impact firmly in the green. He played perfectly within himself, taking only what the defense conceded while wreaking havoc as an off-ball roamer. This chaotic defensive energy shifted the momentum during his brief minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 14.6m -8.0
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Catch-and-shoot reliability provided a nice offensive spark, but defensive frailties at the point of attack gave those gains right back. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, exposing his lateral quickness. The resulting defensive breakdowns slightly outweighed his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 13.3m -7.4
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1