GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 42.5m
18
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.8

Stalled offensive flow and a habit of over-dribbling late in the shot clock resulted in a disastrous -7.8 overall impact. His tendency to hold the ball allowed the defense to set, frequently resulting in forced, low-percentage bail-out jumpers. While he provided adequate positional defense, his ball-stopping tendencies completely derailed the team's rhythm during his massive minute load.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.5m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 42.5m -22.0
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Keon Ellis 36.9m
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite hustle generation (+8.8) and disruptive perimeter defense completely overshadowed a poor outside shooting night to drive a stellar +6.8 impact. He wrecked the opponent's offensive rhythm by violently fighting over screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs at the point of attack. This high-motor tenacity created crucial extra possessions and transition opportunities that swung the momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +8.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 36.9m -19.2
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
28
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-volume shot creation kept his impact positive (+2.9), but poor defensive engagement (-2.0 Def) severely limited his overall ceiling. He consistently broke down primary defenders in isolation, generating high-quality looks at the rim and from beyond the arc. However, a persistent pattern of dying on screens and failing to rotate on the weak side gave opponents easy counter-punches.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense -2.0
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 33.2m -17.3
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Evan Mobley 30.6m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.5

Offensive passivity and an inability to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups caused his impact to crater (-8.5). He routinely passed up open looks in the short roll, bogging down the half-court offense and allowing the defense to reset. Despite passable rim protection, his hesitance to attack the basket severely handicapped the starting unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 30.6m -15.9
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 28.7m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Defensive bleeding and poor closeouts that allowed easy driving lanes resulted in a heavily negative overall impact (-4.0). While his off-ball movement generated perimeter gravity, he gave back all his offensive value by repeatedly getting lost on back-door cuts. Low hustle metrics (+1.6) further highlighted a one-dimensional performance where his scoring output acted as empty calories.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -43.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 28.7m -14.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.0

Poor decision-making in traffic and an inability to pressure the rim completely tanked his net value (-6.0). He repeatedly drove into crowded paint areas without a clear exit strategy, leading to disrupted possessions and easy transition run-outs for the opponent. Furthermore, his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes, neutralizing his playmaking attempts.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 27.7m -14.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Taking only high-percentage looks around the basket resulted in a neutral impact (+0.1), as defensive lapses (-1.3 Def) erased his offensive gains. He found success operating in the dunker spot, converting easy dump-off passes whenever the defense collapsed. However, slow lateral rotations on the perimeter made him a frequent target for opposing guards looking to exploit mismatches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense -1.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 17.9m -9.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Forced post-ups and poor touch around the rim drove a distinctly negative impact (-3.9) during his rotation minutes. He repeatedly tried to back down stouter defenders, resulting in low-quality, contested hooks that fueled opponent fast breaks. Despite showing decent hustle on the glass, his offensive inefficiency actively harmed the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 16.1m -8.3
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+3.9 Def) generated a highly positive impact (+3.0) despite a very brief stint on the floor. He completely locked down his primary assignment, aggressively denying entry passes and blowing up offensive sets before they could materialize. This sheer defensive intensity provided a massive spark, rendering his lack of offensive output completely irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 6.4m -3.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 34.0m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

High-quality shot selection and off-ball gravity created a strong positive impact (+5.8), opening up driving lanes for teammates during critical half-court sets. He supplemented his scoring efficiency with active perimeter rotations (+5.6 Def) that disrupted opposing guards. This two-way reliability anchored the wing rotation throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.6
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 34.0m -17.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 33.1m
17
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.9

Elite defensive anchoring (+8.1 Def) salvaged a positive impact (+2.9) despite a brutal pattern of settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers. His offensive value cratered due to poor shot selection, bleeding away possessions with forced outside attempts. However, his relentless rim protection and switchability in pick-and-roll coverage ultimately kept his overall rating above water.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.1%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.1
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 33.1m -17.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 31.9m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Relentless ball pressure and high-motor loose ball recoveries (+6.2 Hustle) defined a gritty, positive outing. He completely blew up opponent dribble hand-offs at the point of attack, forcing secondary options to initiate the offense. By strictly taking high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense, he ensured his defensive value wasn't wasted.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 31.9m -16.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Tyler Herro 30.2m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.4

Decisive off-ball movement and surprisingly disruptive defensive activity (+8.6 Def) fueled a massive +10.4 overall impact. He capitalized on opponent miscommunications to find clean catch-and-shoot windows, punishing drop coverages repeatedly throughout the contest. Active hands in the passing lanes generated crucial transition opportunities that further inflated his value.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 30.2m -15.7
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Wiggins 23.6m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Opportunistic slashing and disciplined shot selection drove a steady, positive impact (+2.7) without forcing isolation touches. He provided reliable point-of-attack resistance against opposing wings, consistently funneling ball-handlers into the help defense. While his hustle metrics were muted, his low-mistake approach stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 23.6m -12.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Invisible stretches on the weak side dragged down his overall impact (-0.9) despite an otherwise efficient shooting profile. He consistently struggled to navigate off-ball screens, allowing his matchups to find open space during crucial second-half rotations. Furthermore, a lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the defense to ignore him and overload the strong side.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 34.1m -17.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
Kel'el Ware 20.1m
13
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.4

Flawless shot selection and elite vertical spacing created a massive +10.4 impact in limited minutes. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor in transition, converting easy lob opportunities before the defense could set. This relentless rim-running, paired with timely weak-side contests, made him the most efficient two-way presence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 119.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +80.0
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 20.1m -10.3
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.1

A lack of defensive resistance and virtually zero hustle generation (+0.2) resulted in a completely neutral overall impact (+0.1). He successfully bullied smaller defenders in the mid-post, creating his own offense effectively during isolation sets. However, slow closeouts and an inability to secure contested loose balls completely neutralized his scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 19.4m -10.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Defensive liabilities and an inability to create separation on the perimeter caused his impact to crater (-5.5). Opponents repeatedly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, easily blowing by him to collapse the paint. The offense completely stagnated during his shifts as he failed to bend the defense or generate any meaningful advantages.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 13.6m -7.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0