GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 37.2m
26
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite highly efficient perimeter isolation scoring, a slew of careless live-ball turnovers dragged his net impact slightly into the red (-0.7). He frequently over-dribbled late in the shot clock, leading to forced passes that ignited opponent fast breaks. His tendency to ball-watch on weak-side defensive rotations surrendered multiple back-door cuts during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 37.2m -23.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
42
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.8

An absolute masterclass in shot creation and downhill aggression generated a staggering +11.8 net impact. He systematically dismantled drop coverages by getting to his spots in the midrange before the defense could set. A blistering third-quarter scoring barrage completely broke the opponent's defensive shell and put the game out of reach.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.2%
USG% 37.2%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +33.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +33.7
Avg player in 34.7m -21.9
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 32.9m
19
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Exceptional off-ball activity and elite hustle metrics (+6.0) drove a highly impactful two-way performance. He consistently disrupted passing lanes (+5.5 defense) and turned deflections into immediate transition opportunities. His relentless navigation through off-ball screens exhausted his primary matchup and bent the defense out of shape all night.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 32.9m -20.8
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Evan Mobley 32.5m
19
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.4

Flawless shot selection and dominant interior finishing anchored a highly positive net rating. He leveraged his size perfectly in the pick-and-roll, refusing to settle for contested jumpers and punishing mismatches at the rim. His ability to seamlessly switch onto guards during a critical fourth-quarter defensive stand cemented his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 8/8 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 32.5m -20.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Dean Wade 20.7m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

A complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint, cratering his overall impact (-10.7). While his positional defense remained adequate (+1.8), his hesitation to take open perimeter shots bogged down the half-court spacing. A glaring pattern of passing up quality looks directly contributed to multiple shot-clock violations during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 20.7m -13.1
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Strus 26.7m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Poor shot selection early in possessions short-circuited the offensive rhythm and resulted in a negative overall margin. Even with solid defensive effort (+2.8), his inability to convert on contested movement threes gave the opposition easy rebounding outlets. A specific stretch of forced transition jumpers in the second half stalled out a potential comeback run.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 26.7m -16.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 19.9m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Extreme offensive passivity allowed his primary defender to roam freely as a free safety, severely damaging the unit's spacing (-4.7 impact). While his point-of-attack defense remained disruptive (+2.6), his refusal to look at the rim created a virtual 4-on-5 scenario on the other end. This glaring lack of offensive aggression completely neutralized his value during a stagnant second-quarter stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.4%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 19.9m -12.5
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Struggles to navigate high ball screens (-0.5 defense) consistently compromised the shell and led to a negative overall rating. Although he brought excellent hustle (+3.4) to loose ball situations, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards forced the frontcourt into foul trouble. A pattern of getting blown by at the point of attack defined his frustrating rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 15.9m -10.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Suffocating interior defense (+5.8) and flawless finishing around the basket produced an incredibly high-impact shift (+8.8). He completely sealed off the paint, altering multiple shots at the rim while securing every defensive rebound in his vicinity. A sequence of two massive blocks leading directly to transition buckets highlighted his dominance as a backup anchor.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +45.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 13.2m -8.3
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Minor rotational errors and a lack of offensive involvement resulted in a slightly negative stint (-1.6). He provided adequate weak-side rim protection (+1.5), but his failure to establish deep post position clogged the driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. Getting boxed out on two crucial defensive rebounding sequences underscored his struggles with physicality.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 6.2m -3.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 40.0m
36
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.6

An aggressive downhill approach fueled a massive scoring surge that overwhelmed his primary defenders all night. Strong defensive positioning (+4.6) and timely weak-side rotations ensured his high-usage offensive role translated into a positive net margin. This performance was defined by his ability to consistently draw contact and collapse the paint during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 13/15 (86.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 40.0m -25.2
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Desmond Bane 36.4m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Impact cratered due to a high volume of contested, low-quality midrange jumpers that stalled the offensive flow. Even though he provided stout point-of-attack defense (+4.0), the sheer number of empty possessions he generated proved too costly. His struggles to separate from physical wing defenders defined a highly inefficient night.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 36.4m -22.8
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Costly live-ball turnovers and ill-advised perimeter attempts early in the shot clock severely undercut his overall value (-4.0). While his on-ball defensive pressure (+3.2) remained steady, the empty offensive possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities. A brutal stretch of forced passes in the second quarter completely derailed his otherwise solid two-way rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 36.0m -22.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Cain 31.7m
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite hustle metrics (+5.0) drove a highly positive overall impact, compensating for occasional perimeter misses. He continues a highly efficient streak of converting high-percentage looks around the rim, punishing late rotations. His relentless activity on the glass defined his minutes and created crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 31.7m -19.9
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Despite maintaining his recent streak of highly efficient interior finishing, a lack of defensive deterrence (+0.2) dragged his overall impact into the red. Opposing bigs frequently exploited his drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, neutralizing the value of his floor-spacing. His inability to anchor the paint during a key third-quarter run ultimately defined a slightly negative outing.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 29.2m -18.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jevon Carter 27.5m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.0

Smothering perimeter defense (+4.7) and a surprising surge in offensive aggression kept his overall impact in the green. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find open space, though a few forced deep attempts slightly capped his ceiling. His relentless harassment of the opposing point guard set a physical tone that shifted the momentum in the first half.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 27.5m -17.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 16.1m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Defensive lapses and poor closeouts (-0.5) allowed opponents to comfortably hunt him in mismatch situations. He failed to generate enough offensive gravity to offset the points surrendered on the other end. A recurring pattern of getting caught ball-watching on the weak side defined his struggles to stay on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 16.1m -10.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 13.6m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Solid screen-setting and timely rim-runs allowed him to carve out a marginally positive impact in limited minutes. He avoided costly mistakes, playing within his role to stabilize the second-unit offense. His ability to seal off rotation defenders in the dunker spot provided a reliable safety valve during a choppy second quarter.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 13.6m -8.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

High-energy rim attacks and physical interior positioning yielded a quick positive burst (+1.2) during his brief rotation. He capitalized on a sluggish opposing backup frontcourt by immediately forcing the issue in the paint. Drawing a crucial shooting foul on his very first possession set the tone for his highly efficient cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 5.0m -3.1
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
Noah Penda 4.6m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

A disastrous defensive stint (-2.2) in just four minutes of action completely tanked his net impact. Opponents immediately targeted his slow lateral movement, blowing past him for uncontested layups. This brief but damaging stretch of blown assignments forced an early substitution and erased any chance of establishing a rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.2
Raw total -4.0
Avg player in 4.6m -3.0
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1