GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Paul George 38.0m
23
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.3

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined his night, completely erasing his primary assignment from the offensive game plan. Even with a streaky shooting performance, his elite weak-side rotations and deflections drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +7.3
Defense +11.6
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 38.0m -17.8
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 6
S VJ Edgecombe 36.8m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.8

Costly live-ball turnovers and missed defensive assignments in transition severely damaged his overall rating. While he flashed active hands in the half-court, his inability to read secondary defensive rotations led to multiple wide-open corner threes for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 36.8m -17.3
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tyrese Maxey 34.9m
21
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.9

Blistering downhill speed collapsed the defense repeatedly, generating high-quality looks for himself and his teammates. His overall impact was slightly capped by getting caught on screens defensively, but his rim pressure remained the engine of the offense.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 34.9m -16.3
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 34.5m
19
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.4

Despite uncharacteristically poor touch around the nail, his sheer physical gravity warped the opposing defense and opened up passing lanes. He dominated the paint defensively by deterring drives, ensuring a strong positive impact even on an off shooting night.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 34.5m -16.2
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 25.8m
7
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Relentless positioning on the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that kept the offense afloat. He executed his pick-and-roll coverages flawlessly, staying vertical to alter shots without committing cheap fouls.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 25.8m -12.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
21
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Exceptional shot selection and decisive off-ball cutting maximized his offensive efficiency. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find soft spots in the zone, driving a highly positive net impact without needing to dominate the ball.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 30.1m -14.2
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Timely weak-side cuts and disciplined closeouts defined a solid, mistake-free performance. He stayed perfectly attached to shooters navigating off-ball screens, providing quiet but essential two-way stability.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 24.8m -11.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.6

Completely monopolized the defensive glass during his brief minutes, ending possessions and igniting the fast break. His massive frame disrupted multiple driving lanes, generating an outsized positive impact in a very short window.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +52.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 9.1m -4.2
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Adem Bona 6.2m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Over-aggressiveness in drop coverage led to quick fouls and compromised the team's defensive shell during his short stint. He struggled to anchor the paint against veteran bigs, resulting in a swift trip back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 6.2m -2.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 36.8m
21
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

A highly efficient scoring night was completely undone by defensive rotations and likely turnover issues that fueled opponent runs. He bullied his primary matchup in the post consistently, yet his inability to close out on shooters kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 36.8m -17.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ayo Dosunmu 36.2m
19
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Perimeter spacing kept the offense afloat, but his overall impact was muted by forced drives into traffic that resulted in empty possessions. Active hands in passing lanes boosted his defensive metrics, though he struggled to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 36.2m -17.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 29.4m
5
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Offensive clunkiness and missed bunnies at the rim severely capped his value despite his usual rim-deterrence. He anchored the drop coverage effectively against pick-and-rolls, but fumbled entry passes and poor finishing negated his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 29.4m -13.8
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Brutal shot selection from the perimeter derailed offensive momentum and led to long rebounds for the opponent. He was repeatedly targeted on defense by bigger wings, resulting in a steep negative overall impact despite decent floor spacing gravity.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 28.9m -13.6
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Anthony Edwards 26.2m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.8

Settling for contested, off-the-dribble jumpers completely tanked his offensive value and stalled the half-court offense. While he showed strong effort fighting through screens on the defensive end, his abysmal shot quality created a massive crater in his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 24.5%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 26.2m -12.3
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Bones Hyland 30.1m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.4

Lethal pull-up shooting against drop coverage broke the game open during a crucial second-half stretch. His defensive engagement was surprisingly disruptive, using quick hands to blow up dribble hand-offs and generate transition chances.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.7
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 30.1m -14.1
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 28.6m
12
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

High-energy closeouts and weak-side rim protection couldn't salvage a night ruined by erratic perimeter shooting. He forced too many above-the-break threes early in the shot clock, allowing the defense to leak out for easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +4.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 28.6m -13.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
6
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.2

Smart connective passing kept the second unit's offense humming, though his lack of foot speed was exposed on the other end. Opposing guards consistently attacked his closeouts, washing out the positive value of his methodical playmaking.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.4
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 14.3m -6.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Invisible on the offensive end, failing to pressure the rim or create advantages during his brief stint. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens defensively, leading to a quick hook and a solidly negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 9.4m -4.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0