GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.5m
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.9

Slashed through defensive gaps with elite burst, generating high-value looks at the rim to surge past his scoring averages. His active hands created multiple live-ball turnovers that he personally converted into fast-break points. While foul trouble or minor rotational mistakes slightly capped his ceiling, his aggressive downhill mentality drove winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 39.5m -19.9
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quentin Grimes 38.9m
10
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.7

Elite perimeter defense and screen navigation were completely undone by poor offensive decision-making. He repeatedly stalled possessions by driving into traffic and forcing contested looks instead of keeping the ball moving. The resulting empty trips allowed the opponent to set their defense, neutralizing his otherwise stellar point-of-attack work.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 38.9m -19.8
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 34.3m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Despite a significant scoring bump above his average, hidden mistakes like illegal screens or poor transition spacing tanked his net value. He struggled to process defensive rotations quickly enough, often arriving late to contest shooters. The raw offensive efficiency was a mirage covering up fundamental execution errors.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 34.3m -17.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Paul George 33.1m
23
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.5

Two-way stability defined his performance, utilizing his length to disrupt passing lanes while maintaining offensive fluidity. He navigated screen coverages beautifully to find his perimeter spots. The gap between his raw box production and total impact suggests a few costly turnovers or defensive lapses in transition.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 33.1m -16.8
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Joel Embiid 31.9m
39
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.6

Utterly dominated the interior matchup, leveraging his massive frame to draw fouls and dictate the half-court geometry. His defensive intimidation factor was equally potent, altering numerous attempts at the rim to fuel the transition game. The slight dip from his raw box score to net impact likely stemmed from high-usage fatigue leading to late-clock turnovers.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 13/18 (72.2%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 46.6%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +23.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.1
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 31.9m -16.2
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 23.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.4

An absolute offensive black hole whose shot selection actively harmed the team's momentum. He forced multiple contested jumpers early in the shot clock, essentially functioning as live-ball turnovers for the opponent. Failed to generate enough defensive friction to justify his continued presence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 18.6m -9.4
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided a purely utilitarian shift by dominating the defensive glass and altering shots in the paint. His complete lack of offensive involvement limited his ceiling, but he executed his specific role as a space-eater flawlessly. Avoided costly mistakes to scrape out a marginally positive impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 16.1m -8.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Jared McCain 13.9m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game, clanking open perimeter looks and failing to bend the defense. His inability to create separation off the dribble led to stagnant offensive sets during his minutes. Kept his effort up defensively, but the lack of shot-making gravity severely hampered floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 13.9m -7.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Defensive liabilities completely overshadowed a perfect night at the charity stripe. He was consistently outmuscled on the glass and lost his man on backdoor cuts. The lack of physical resistance or secondary hustle plays made him a clear target for opposing offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -57.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.3
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 13.7m -7.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
IND Indiana Pacers
S Andrew Nembhard 35.2m
18
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.7

Playmaking and defensive point-of-attack pressure generated significant raw value, but inefficiency dragged his net rating into the red. He initiated the offense well but forced too many late-clock mid-range attempts when driving lanes closed. The volume of empty possessions ultimately neutralized his strong defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 35.2m -17.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 33.8m
20
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Generated strong initial value through sheer volume, but gave it right back through likely offensive fouls or sloppy passing. His defensive versatility and active hands provided a solid baseline. Ultimately, his net impact was muted by forcing the issue against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 33.8m -17.1
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ethan Thompson 32.8m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.0

Bleeding value on the defensive end completely erased his decent offensive production. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, exposing his poor lateral containment. A lack of secondary hustle plays further compounded his negative floor impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 32.8m -16.6
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.3

A sharp drop-off in scoring volume and poor shot selection cratered his overall impact. Struggled to find his rhythm offensively, settling for heavily contested jumpers instead of attacking the rim. The minimal hustle contributions couldn't salvage a highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 29.8m -15.0
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jay Huff 27.5m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Defensive anchoring and rim deterrence drove his positive value despite a highly inefficient shooting night from deep. He acted as a true stretch-five, pulling opposing bigs away from the paint while maintaining exceptional rotational awareness. The sheer volume of missed perimeter shots kept his impact from being elite.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 27.5m -14.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Poor defensive positioning and an inability to stay in front of his man severely damaged his overall rating. He was hunted in isolation sequences, giving back whatever spacing value he provided on offense. A lack of loose-ball recoveries or rotational help left his impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.8
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 23.4m -11.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

A complete offensive disappearing act broke his streak of highly efficient performances. While he remained engaged defensively as a weak-side helper, his reluctance to look for his own shot bogged down the second unit's spacing. This lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 18.2m -9.2
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.6

Completely hijacked the game's momentum with relentless full-court pressure and elite hustle metrics. His ability to consistently puncture the paint and finish efficiently broke the opposing defensive shell. Generated massive swing value by turning defensive deflections directly into transition scores.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +9.4
Defense +5.1
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 17.2m -8.8
Impact +21.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Relentless offensive rebounding and high-energy rim runs fueled a highly productive short shift. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities by outworking bigger matchups in the trenches. Even without elite defensive metrics, his sheer physical presence dictated the tempo inside.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense 0.0
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 11.8m -5.9
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Maximized a brief rotation stint by providing exceptional drop-coverage defense and rim protection. He walled off the paint effectively, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. His disciplined positioning ensured positive value without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 8.7m -4.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Rushed his offensive execution during a brief cameo, throwing up two quick misses that killed momentum. Failed to register any meaningful hustle stats to offset the empty possessions. Was essentially a non-factor whose negative value stemmed entirely from wasted shot attempts.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 1.7m -0.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0