GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.5m
35
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.5

An absolute flamethrower performance from beyond the arc drove a monumental +23.4 box score impact. He carried the offensive load with relentless self-creation, though the sheer volume of attempts slightly capped his overall efficiency. The scoring explosion masked some minor rotational lapses, cementing a true breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 14/28 (50.0%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 39.5m -23.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.1

Brutal shot selection and relentless chucking from the perimeter cratered his offensive value and tanked the team's momentum. Despite flashing excellent defensive instincts (+6.3 Def) and fighting through screens, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was insurmountable. He shot his team out of the game by forcing heavily contested looks early in the clock.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 31.8m -19.0
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Adem Bona 25.7m
3
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

High-energy rim protection and active hands generated a strong defensive rating, but his inability to finish through contact dragged the overall impact down. He was a non-factor in the pick-and-roll, allowing the opposing defense to trap the ball handler aggressively. The raw physical tools flashed, but the offensive limitations stalled out the unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 25.7m -15.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Justin Edwards 24.8m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.0

A disastrous on-court net rating (-11.0) completely overshadowed a decent perimeter shooting night. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, bleeding points and forcing defensive rotations that broke the team's scheme. The scoring bump was merely cosmetic compared to the structural damage done during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 24.8m -14.9
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dominick Barlow 19.4m
0
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

Elite rim deterrence and switchability anchored a massive +8.1 defensive score, salvaging an otherwise invisible offensive night. His streak of highly efficient finishing snapped abruptly as he failed to convert around the basket. However, his sheer physical presence in the paint ensured his minutes remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +8.1
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 19.4m -11.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.5

Inefficient perimeter chucking stalled out the half-court offense and negated his high-energy playmaking. While he buzzed around the floor to generate deflections (+4.8 Hustle), the poor shot quality fueled opponent run-outs. He tried to shoot his way out of a slump, ultimately doing more harm than good to the lineup's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 25.9m -15.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Efficient interior scoring buoyed his box score metrics, but poor transition defense dragged his overall net rating into the red. He found soft spots in the zone to generate easy floaters, yet struggled to match up in semi-transition when the pace quickened. The offensive polish couldn't quite compensate for the defensive bleeding during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.1m -13.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

A shocking display of perimeter spacing from a traditional interior big completely inverted the floor and caught the defense off guard. He paired this bizarre but effective shooting anomaly with his usual bruising screen-setting and glass-cleaning (+3.9 Hustle). Capitalizing on these rare outside looks turned a standard backup center shift into a highly disruptive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 18.5m -11.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dalen Terry 18.2m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Absolute chaos creation defined this shift, as an elite +7.1 hustle score highlights a barrage of deflections, loose ball recoveries, and extra possessions. He weaponized his length at the point of attack to completely disrupt the opponent's offensive flow. This was a textbook example of swinging a game's momentum without needing a high usage rate.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +7.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 18.2m -10.9
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Hard-nosed rebounding and active positioning on the margins kept his impact slightly positive despite a clunky shooting night. He failed to stretch the floor, but compensated by generating second-chance opportunities through sheer effort (+3.7 Hustle). A gritty, blue-collar shift that provided just enough stability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 10.2m -6.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Made the most of a brief cameo by converting his only look and playing mistake-free basketball. He stayed within the flow of the offense and executed his defensive assignments without gambling. A perfectly neutral, steadying presence during a short bridge lineup.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 3.8m -2.3
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Chet Holmgren 29.9m
17
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.4

Total dominance as a rim deterrent anchored an elite +17.3 defensive impact score. He paired that elite paint protection with highly efficient floor-spacing, punishing drop coverages from the perimeter. This was a masterclass in two-way anchoring without needing to force offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +17.3
Raw total +35.2
Avg player in 29.9m -17.8
Impact +17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 1
22
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.3

Surgical shot selection allowed him to dictate the game's pace despite taking a backseat in his usual scoring volume. He supplemented his hyper-efficient isolation scoring with active hands in the passing lanes, generating a strong +4.2 hustle rating. The overall impact reflects a controlled, opportunistic performance rather than a forced takeover.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 29.1m -17.4
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Luguentz Dort 22.1m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

A severe perimeter shooting slump tanked his offensive value and dragged his overall impact deep into the red. While he generated his usual chaotic energy through deflections and screen navigation (+4.0 Hustle), the empty offensive possessions were too costly. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, cramping the floor for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 22.1m -13.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.5

High-level positional defense and elite rebounding positioning drove a massive positive rating. He capitalized on his touches around the rim to punish mismatches, continuing a highly efficient stretch of interior finishing. His ability to anchor the glass cleanly limited second-chance opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 21.8m -13.1
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Williams 20.4m
18
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.4

Offensive aggression fueled a solid overall rating, breaking out of a recent scoring dip with confident drives to the rim. However, defensive lapses and negative tracking metrics on that end (-0.5 Def) kept his overall impact grounded. The high-volume creation ultimately outweighed the occasional missed rotation.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.5
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 20.4m -12.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jared McCain 25.4m
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

A sudden burst of perimeter aggression yielded a scoring spike, but defensive bleeding during his shifts pulled his net rating underwater. He hunted shots early in the clock, which occasionally disrupted the team's half-court rhythm despite the makes. The scoring volume was a welcome surprise, but it came at the expense of overall lineup stability.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +36.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 25.4m -15.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Relentless point-of-attack defense and screen navigation kept his impact afloat despite a sharp dip in offensive production. He sacrificed his own touches to focus purely on shutting down perimeter penetration, reflected in a stellar +5.5 defensive score. The offensive hesitation limited his ceiling, but the gritty defensive effort stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +4.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 22.2m -13.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.2

Catch-and-shoot mastery from the perimeter completely broke the opposing defense's shell, driving a massive +18.1 box score impact. He compounded that offensive explosion with elite rotational energy, taking charges and winning loose balls (+4.8 Hustle). This was a flawless two-way stretch that swung the game's momentum entirely.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.6%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 18.8m -11.2
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 18.6m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Gravity as a movement shooter opened up driving lanes for teammates, heavily contributing to his positive offensive rating. He held up surprisingly well at the point of attack, posting a +4.1 defensive score by staying attached to his assignments through screens. A reliable, low-mistake shift that perfectly executed his specialized role.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 18.6m -11.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 15.6m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Failed to generate his typical disruptive defensive events, resulting in an unusually low hustle score that couldn't mask a quiet offensive stint. He operated mostly as a passive floor spacer, which allowed the defense to sag off and clog driving lanes. The lack of point-of-attack pressure ultimately resulted in a negative overall shift during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 15.6m -9.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a brief rotation stint, leading to a negative net impact despite maintaining his recent streak of efficient finishing. He was caught out of position on a few defensive rotations, which allowed easy transition buckets. The limited court time prevented him from establishing any real rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 10.7m -6.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

A rushed stint at the end of the rotation yielded empty possessions and forced jumpers. He failed to register a single positive tracking metric during his brief time on the floor. The negative impact stems entirely from wasted offensive trips in a micro-sample.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 1.8m -1.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Garbage time minutes resulted in a negligible overall impact, characterized by a single forced perimeter look. He managed to secure one loose ball to salvage a slightly positive hustle score. Ultimately, this was a placeholder shift with no meaningful tactical takeaways.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 1.8m -1.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Logged purely cardio minutes during a brief appearance at the end of the bench rotation. He generated absolutely zero statistical footprint across all tracking categories. The slight negative total reflects the lineup's performance rather than any individual mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.8m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0