GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Quentin Grimes 31.0m
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.4

A phenomenal +10.8 defensive rating tells the true story of his value, as he relentlessly hounded ball-handlers at the point of attack. His disciplined shot selection kept the offense flowing, ensuring his two-way effort resulted in a strong positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +10.8
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 31.0m -21.0
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 29.6m
22
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.5

Blistering perimeter efficiency and a high-motor approach (+3.5 hustle) catapulted his net impact well above his seasonal baseline. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown, turning spot-up opportunities into a backbreaking scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.2%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +46.4
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 29.6m -20.1
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 28.1m
35
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.3

Unstoppable efficiency from all three levels anchored a massive +14.3 net rating. By drawing constant double-teams and converting heavily contested looks, he completely dismantled the opposing frontcourt's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 83.5%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg +47.4
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +29.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 28.1m -19.0
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Paul George 26.3m
28
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.3

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, highlighted by a staggering +10.9 defensive rating that suffocated opposing wings. He paired this lockdown coverage with lethal perimeter shot-making, punishing drop coverages to drive an elite overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +10.9
Raw total +38.1
Avg player in 26.3m -17.8
Impact +20.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 25.5m
9
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.5

Maintaining his highly efficient finishing streak wasn't enough to prevent a negative overall impact. The underlying damage likely stemmed from unseen transition lapses and a failure to secure contested defensive rebounds during crucial momentum shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 25.5m -17.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Catching fire from beyond the arc completely inverted his recent shooting woes and drove a highly positive net score. His willingness to take and make deep, momentum-shifting threes stretched the opposing defense past its breaking point.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 24.1m -16.4
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Forced shots in traffic and a sharp deviation from his normally efficient interior game resulted in a disastrous -9.5 net impact. Compounding the offensive struggles, he was consistently late on defensive rotations, allowing easy straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 15.3m -10.5
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 14.7m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite holding his own as a rim protector (+2.6 defense), his inability to generate offensive gravity dragged down his overall rating. A lack of involvement in screen-and-roll actions rendered him a virtual non-factor on the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 14.7m -9.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A sudden scoring outburst was entirely undone by glaring defensive liabilities (-1.9) on the other end of the floor. Getting repeatedly burned on backdoor cuts negated the value of his highly efficient offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +58.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 14.5m -9.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A barrage of ill-advised perimeter attempts quickly torpedoed his value during a brief stint on the floor. Failing to recognize the flow of the offense, his empty possessions created easy transition opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -73.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 7.2m -4.8
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Perfect shooting mechanics on a single possession couldn't mask the defensive bleeding (-1.5) that occurred while he was on the court. He struggled to navigate screens, forcing the rest of the unit into disadvantageous rotation scenarios.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -73.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 7.2m -4.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Maximizing a very short leash, he aggressively attacked the basket to generate a highly positive +4.8 net impact. His decisive downhill drives punished a sleeping second-unit defense before they could get set.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -76.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 6.1m -4.2
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 5.2m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A complete lack of physical engagement (0.0 hustle) and a reliance on heavily contested deep balls dragged his rating into the red. Settling for low-percentage bail-out shots at the end of the clock stalled the team's offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -73.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 5.2m -3.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Stepping completely outside of his traditional role to launch multiple perimeter shots resulted in a catastrophic -6.9 impact score. This baffling shot selection wasted crucial possessions and completely neutralized his usual rebounding gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -73.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 5.2m -3.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 32.9m
23
pts
9
reb
12
ast
Impact
+3.7

A massive surge in scoring aggression defined this outing, breaking sharply from his recent passive tendencies. Capitalizing on defensive mismatches, he generated high-quality perimeter looks that elevated his total impact well into the green.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 32.9m -22.3
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Matas Buzelis 29.9m
18
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Despite a tremendous +5.2 hustle rating generated by high motor plays, his overall impact plunged into the negatives due to inefficient shot selection. Firing blanks from the perimeter on high volume negated the value of his relentless off-ball activity.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 29.9m -20.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tre Jones 27.5m
15
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.4

The raw production masks a surprisingly negative overall impact (-4.4) driven by a regression in his usually elite shot creation efficiency. Snapping a five-game streak of hyper-efficient shooting, his offensive rhythm stalled out when forced into contested mid-range looks.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 27.5m -18.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nick Richards 8.9m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

A steep drop-off in finishing around the basket cratered his offensive utility during a brief rotation stint. While his defensive metrics remained respectable, the inability to convert high-percentage looks led to a heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 8.9m -6.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Smith 6.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Short-stint value was entirely anchored by defensive positioning (+3.2) rather than offensive output. He completely vanished as a scoring threat compared to his recent averages, but active hands and rim deterrence kept his net impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 6.0m -4.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Isaac Okoro 23.3m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Solid spot-up execution wasn't quite enough to push his net impact into positive territory. Hidden costs in transition defense and a lack of secondary playmaking ultimately neutralized the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 23.3m -15.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.7

Defensive liabilities (-2.0) and empty perimeter possessions completely overshadowed a notable uptick in his scoring volume. Getting consistently targeted on switches allowed the opposition to bleed away any value he provided on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 22.8m -15.5
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Continuing a troubling trend of offensive inefficiency, his inability to convert inside the arc severely damaged his overall rating. A sluggish +0.4 hustle score points to a lack of physical engagement on the glass and in 50/50 situations.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 22.4m -15.1
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

High-energy interior play and second-chance generation (+3.5 hustle) kept his impact positive despite a rough night from beyond the arc. By abandoning the perimeter and focusing on the paint late in the game, he salvaged his overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 20.6m -14.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Breaking out of a severe offensive slump with decisive cuts to the basket wasn't enough to yield a positive net score. The underlying metrics suggest he gave away crucial points through rotational errors and late closeouts that don't show up in the traditional box score.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 20.3m -13.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.6

Relentless downhill attacking fueled a stellar +4.3 hustle rating and a highly positive overall impact. He maintained his recent hot streak by punishing closeouts, completely offsetting the minor cost of a few forced perimeter attempts.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -60.9
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 19.2m -13.0
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Though his offensive usage plummeted compared to recent outings, he made his brief minutes count through elite defensive positioning (+3.1). Acting as a reliable deterrent in the paint ensured his short stint was a net positive for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +76.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 6.1m -4.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0