GAME ANALYSIS

GET THIS IN YOUR INBOX

Every breakdown for your team — free, the morning after the game.

Follow your team — free

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 39.2m
17
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+20.1

Mobley was a terrifying two-way hub, leveraging 5 assists and highly efficient 6-of-11 shooting to generate a +15.4 Offense credit. He completely hijacked the game defensively (+12.4 Defense), racking up a monstrous 5 blocks, 3 steals, and 12 contests to dictate the terms of engagement in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +8.2
Defense +7.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 5
TO 3
S James Harden 37.4m
24
pts
0
reb
11
ast
Impact
+23.9

Harden operated as a masterful floor general, offsetting a 5-of-14 shooting night by orchestrating the offense with 11 assists (↑↑ avg 5.6) to drive a +20.2 Offense credit. He also flashed surprising defensive engagement, logging 9 contests and 3 steals to post a robust +8.8 Defense mark.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
43
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+39.2

An unrelenting offensive inferno defined Mitchell's night, as he torched the defense for 43 points to generate a staggering +33.7 Offense credit. He was equally locked in on the other end, suffocating his matchups to 5-of-15 (33%) shooting to ensure his scoring barrage translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 13/15 (86.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 40.5%
Net Rtg +38.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +32.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +8.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 31.8m
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Allen took a backseat offensively with just 9 points (↓↓ avg 13.5) and 5 rebounds, but his defensive activity remained elite. He tallied 12 contests and 5 deflections, anchoring the interior to earn a sturdy +5.6 Defense credit despite opponents shooting 56% when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Dean Wade 22.7m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Wade embodied the concept of a low-usage connector, attempting just one shot but anchoring a +20 plus-minus through elite dirty work. His +3.5 Defense credit was driven by stifling perimeter coverage, holding his matchups to a poor 2-of-7 (29%) shooting while chipping in 2 deflections and 2 screen assists.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Max Strus 27.0m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

A frigid 1-of-6 showing from beyond the arc completely neutralized Strus's offensive value, leaving him with a marginal +0.3 Offense credit. While he managed to swipe 2 steals to boost his defensive metrics (+4.0 Defense), he was repeatedly exploited in isolation, allowing opponents to shoot 7-of-11 (64%) against him.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Schröder failed to initiate the offense during his 20 minutes, finishing with zero assists (↓↓ avg 3.1) and limiting his playmaking impact. Although he scored efficiently (3-of-4 FG) for a +4.2 Offense credit, his inability to contain his matchups (opponents shot 62%) contributed to a team-worst -14 plus-minus.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Merrill 16.3m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Merrill's perimeter stroke abandoned him, as he clanked his way to a 2-of-7 night from deep, severely capping his value with a +1.9 Offense credit. His defensive limitations were also exposed, allowing opponents to convert 3-of-5 shots when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Tyson was entirely marginalized during his brief 7-minute stint, failing to make a single field goal and finishing with just 1 point. His lack of peripheral stats and zero hustle contributions resulted in a hollow performance across the board.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -58.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

In a fleeting 19-second appearance, Proctor failed to register any traditional box-score statistics. His brief stint on the court resulted in a minor -1.9 Offense credit before the final horn sounded.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Porter Jr. was limited to just 19 seconds of action at the end of the game. Despite the microscopic sample size, he somehow absorbed a -1.9 Offense penalty without recording a single traditional stat.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 0.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Ellis logged a mere 19 seconds of garbage time, leaving his box score and impact profile completely blank. He had no opportunity to influence the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Tomlin made the most of his 19 seconds on the floor by managing to log a single shot contest. This microscopic burst of energy earned him a +0.2 Hustle credit despite failing to record any other statistics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Bryant only saw 19 seconds of floor time, which was insufficient to record any counting stats. His brief cameo left his impact metrics completely flat at zero across the board.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 39.5m
19
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.4

Cunningham's offensive engine sputtered, yielding a modest +5.9 Offense credit as he scored below his usual volume (19 points vs avg 25.8) and committed 5 turnovers. He also struggled at the point of attack, allowing opponents to shoot a comfortable 9-of-17 (53%) when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tobias Harris 36.5m
16
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.5

Despite a frigid 6-of-17 shooting night, Harris found alternative ways to anchor the offense, generating a +12.6 Offense credit by stepping up as a secondary playmaker with 5 assists (↑↑ avg 1.1) and zero turnovers. His defensive metrics (+7.8 Defense credit) were buoyed by active hands (2 steals, 1 block), even though opponents shot 60% when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 28.9m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Robinson was a complete ghost offensively, attempting just two shots to finish with 4 points (-70% vs avg) and a meager +1.4 Offense credit. Without his usual volume from deep, his lack of peripheral contributions (0 hustle stats, 1 rebound) rendered him largely ineffective during his 28 minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 26.6m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Duren was completely neutralized on the glass, pulling down just 2 rebounds (↓↓ avg 9.3) while bleeding value through 4 turnovers. He did provide sturdy rim protection (+3.0 Defense credit), contesting 7 shots and limiting his matchups to 3-of-9 shooting, but foul trouble (5 PFs) ultimately derailed his rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Ausar Thompson 18.7m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.0

Thompson struggled with decision-making, leaking value offensively (-2.8 Offense credit) due to a sloppy 4 turnovers (↑↑ avg 1.5). However, he remained a nuisance on the other end, contesting 7 shots and holding his matchups to a stifling 4-of-11 (36%) shooting to salvage a +2.4 Defense mark.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -70.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Caris LeVert 31.4m
24
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.9

LeVert erupted for a massive two-way performance, torching the nets for 24 points (↑↑ avg 4.8) on highly efficient 10-of-16 shooting to drive a +23.3 Offense credit. He was equally disruptive on the perimeter, racking up 6 deflections and suffocating his matchups (2-of-8 shooting) to completely flip the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +19.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.0

An icy 0-of-4 shooting night completely erased Jenkins' scoring threat, leaving him with a negligible +0.1 Offense credit. However, he managed to stay on the floor by competing defensively, logging 5 contests and generating a +2.5 Defense score despite his offensive disappearing act.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 14.0m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.0

Reed was an absolute wrecking ball offensively, pouring in 15 points on a blistering 7-of-9 from the floor to post a dominant +14.0 Offense credit in just 14 minutes. While his rim protection was porous (opponents shot 5-of-6 against him), his high-energy play yielded 5 contests and 2 deflections to keep his overall impact afloat.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Holland failed to register a point, but his relentless energy completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm in just 7 minutes. He racked up 3 deflections and locked down his assignments (1-of-6 shooting) to generate a +3.1 Defense credit, proving his value lies far beyond the scoring column.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +64.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

In a brief 7-minute cameo, Stewart maximized his offensive touches by converting 2-of-3 shots to earn a +3.8 Offense credit. He was active around the rim with 5 contests, providing a quick burst of physical interior play before returning to the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +50.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Green was practically invisible during his brief 5-minute stint, failing to attempt a shot or record a single counting stat. His lack of engagement resulted in a flat +0.0 Hustle credit and a negative defensive impact (-1.5 Defense) before he was pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Sasser provided an explosive microwave scoring punch, erupting for 7 points on 3-of-4 shooting in less than three minutes of action. This hyper-efficient burst translated to a +6.1 Offense credit, instantly tilting the momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +84.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0