GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Darius Garland 39.4m
26
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+2.3

High-level pick-and-roll orchestration kept the offense humming, offsetting a mediocre shooting night. His active hands in the passing lanes disrupted multiple entry passes to spark transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 39.4m -20.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
17
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.7

An abysmal perimeter shooting display severely damaged his team's offensive efficiency. Despite generating immense pressure with his hustle, settling for heavily contested isolation threes ultimately sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/24 (25.0%)
3PT 1/11 (9.1%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.4%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +8.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 37.9m -19.5
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dean Wade 31.6m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Exceptional weak-side help defense and relentless activity on loose balls drove a massive positive rating. His perfectly timed cuts along the baseline punished defenders who fell asleep off the ball.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +8.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 31.6m -16.2
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Andre Hunter 26.5m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

A disastrous shooting performance and an inability to create separation absolutely cratered his value. He routinely forced contested midrange looks against set defenders, stalling out the offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 26.5m -13.7
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 22.9m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact at the rim dragged down his usually stellar efficiency. Opposing bigs successfully pushed his catch points further from the basket, neutralizing his lob threat.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 22.9m -11.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylon Tyson 35.5m
16
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Relentless glass-cleaning and high-motor closeouts fueled a highly productive two-way showing. He consistently outworked his primary matchup for second-chance opportunities, tilting the possession battle.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 35.5m -18.1
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 31.9m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.4

Elite point-of-attack defense and brilliant rotational awareness completely shut down the opponent's perimeter attack. He consistently blew up dribble-handoff actions before they could even materialize, masking his quiet offensive output.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +5.9
Defense +13.4
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 31.9m -16.3
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Bully-ball tactics in the post and decisive rolls to the rim generated highly efficient offense. He established deep post position early in the shot clock, forcing the defense to collapse and scramble.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 14.2m -7.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Flawless finishing around the basket maximized his short burst of playing time. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications by slipping screens for easy, uncontested dunks.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 14.2m -7.3
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

A lack of offensive assertiveness rendered him largely invisible during his short run. He failed to pressure the rim or collapse the defense, leading to stagnant perimeter passing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +49.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 6.5m -3.4
Impact -1.9
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
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Poor spatial awareness and defensive mistimings quickly pushed his brief stint into the negative. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, allowing straight-line drives to the basket.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -87.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 4.4m -2.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 43.8m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite shot selection and off-ball movement drove a massive positive impact, capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot looks. His relentless closeouts on the perimeter padded his strong hustle metrics to anchor the blowout.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.8m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 43.8m -22.5
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Miles Bridges 39.4m
20
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.8

Defensive versatility anchored his positive overall score despite a highly inefficient shooting night. He consistently blew up opponent dribble hand-offs, though forced isolation jumpers capped his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 39.4m -20.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 38.9m
25
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.6

High-volume bricklaying dragged his net impact into the red despite strong rebounding positioning. Settling for contested pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock negated the value of his physical aggression.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 38.9m -19.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Sion James 37.1m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

Offensive stagnation and poor finishing at the rim severely punished his overall rating. He repeatedly stalled transition opportunities by holding the ball too long, allowing the defense to set.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 37.1m -19.0
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Elite rim protection and vertical spacing fueled a highly efficient two-way stint. He completely deterred drivers from entering the paint, maximizing his value in limited minutes without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 20.5m -10.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Defensive lapses in drop coverage bled points and tanked his overall impact. Opposing guards repeatedly exploited his slow lateral rotations out of the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 21.9m -11.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
KJ Simpson 19.1m
6
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.1

Errant perimeter shooting and forced drives completely derailed the offensive flow during his shifts. While his point-of-attack defense was disruptive, the empty possessions on the other end were simply too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 19.1m -9.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Green 14.9m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Timely backdoor cuts and opportunistic spot-up shooting provided a quick offensive spark. His ability to navigate screens and chase shooters off the line added quiet defensive value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 14.9m -7.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Passive offensive positioning and a failure to secure loose balls limited his effectiveness. He struggled to establish physical leverage against bigger forwards in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 13.9m -7.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.2

Crisp dribble hand-offs and sturdy screen-setting lubricated the offense perfectly during his rotation. He walled off the restricted area beautifully, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +49.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 10.4m -5.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

A brief, largely invisible stint left minimal footprint on the game's outcome. He simply filled space on the floor without generating any distinct advantages or glaring mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 4.9m -2.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0