Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DET lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
DET 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell 10/22 +0.5
Allen 8/14 +2.2
Merrill Hard 7/10 +8.5
Mobley 7/10 +4.6
Harden Hard 2/10 -5.6
Strus Hard 3/7 -0.5
Bryant 0/4 -4.2
Wade 2/2 +2.9
Porter Jr. Open 1/2 -0.3
Ellis Hard 1/1 +2.1

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham Hard 5/16 -5.2
Jenkins Hard 4/12 -0.9
Sasser Hard 3/12 -1.8
Robinson Hard 4/7 +4.2
Duren 3/7 -1.4
Thompson 2/7 -2.7
Harris Hard 0/6 -5.8
LeVert Hard 3/5 +3.1
Reed Open 2/5 -1.7
Holland II Hard 1/3 +0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
DET
43/85 Field Goals 30/85
50.6% Field Goal % 35.3%
11/34 3-Pointers 12/39
32.4% 3-Point % 30.8%
28/44 Free Throws 22/29
63.6% Free Throw % 75.9%
59.9% True Shooting % 48.1%
69 Total Rebounds 52
14 Offensive 10
36 Defensive 31
31 Assists 21
2.38 Assist/TO Ratio 1.40
11 Turnovers 14
10 Steals 7
4 Blocks 5
22 Fouls 31
58 Points in Paint 34
12 Fast Break Pts 11
22 Points off TOs 17
18 Second Chance Pts 11
37 Bench Points 47
35 Largest Lead 1
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Evan Mobley
21 PTS · 12 REB · 6 AST · 36.0 MIN
+23.66
2
Donovan Mitchell
26 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 31.1 MIN
+20.66
3
Sam Merrill
23 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 25.3 MIN
+18.79
4
Jarrett Allen
23 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 24.8 MIN
+16.34
5
Max Strus
9 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 27.6 MIN
+13.77
6
Daniss Jenkins
17 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 34.1 MIN
+9.44
7
Caris LeVert
11 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 16.6 MIN
+7.95
8
Dean Wade
5 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 20.9 MIN
+7.73
9
Paul Reed
4 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 8.2 MIN
+5.49
10
Tolu Smith
4 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 5.4 MIN
+4.95
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:12 T. Bryant REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 125–94
Q4 0:14 MISS M. Sasser 32' pullup 3PT 125–94
Q4 0:22 N. Tomlin running DUNK (2 PTS) (C. Porter Jr. 1 AST) 125–94
Q4 0:26 C. Porter Jr. REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 123–94
Q4 0:27 MISS D. Jenkins 27' pullup 3PT 123–94
Q4 0:36 K. Ellis 26' 3PT pullup (3 PTS) 123–94
Q4 0:45 C. Porter Jr. REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 120–94
Q4 0:47 MISS R. Holland II 27' pullup 3PT 120–94
Q4 1:01 C. Porter Jr. Layup (2 PTS) (T. Bryant 1 AST) 120–94
Q4 1:02 T. Bryant REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 118–94
Q4 1:03 MISS T. Bryant putback Layup 118–94
Q4 1:04 T. Bryant REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 118–94
Q4 1:05 MISS T. Bryant 6' Layup 118–94
Q4 1:13 N. Tomlin STEAL (1 STL) 118–94
Q4 1:13 T. Smith bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 118–94

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Evan Mobley actually won the night
21 points, 12 boards, 6 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+16.1), hustle (+11.4), and defense (+4.2), pushing Net Impact to +23.7.
Scoring +16.1
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +11.4
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Defense +4.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold James Harden too hard
9 points, 5 boards, 6 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was defense (-6.2) and turnovers (-2.4), pulling Net Impact down to -9.9.
Defense -6.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Turnovers -2.4
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Shot-making +1.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Cade Cunningham too hard
13 points, 4 boards, 5 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-7.1) and defense (-1.5), pulling Net Impact down to -6.7.
Turnovers -7.1
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.5
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +0.7
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Max Strus's value was hiding in plain sight
9 points, 3 boards, 2 assists undersells it. scoring (+5.8), defense (+5.0), and hustle (+2.8) pushed his Net Impact to +8.9.
Scoring +5.8
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +5.0
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Hustle +2.8
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 36.8m
13
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.7

A frigid perimeter stroke completely derailed Cunningham's scoring output, as he bricked all seven of his three-point attempts en route to just 13 points. He compensated for the offensive slump by locking in defensively, generating 7 contests and 3 deflections to power a +5.2 defense credit. While the playmaking was passable (5 assists), his inability to stretch the floor severely limited his +2.4 offense mark.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Daniss Jenkins 34.0m
17
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Jenkins operated as a highly volatile offensive engine, overcoming inefficient shooting (4-of-12 FG) by relentlessly attacking the basket to draw fouls (7-of-8 FT). This aggressive downhill mentality and solid playmaking (5 assists) fueled a robust +13.3 offense credit. Unfortunately, he was an absolute sieve on the other end, allowing his matchups to shoot a blistering 73% when guarded, which resulted in a -0.5 defense mark.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 28.6m
5
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Thompson's offensive limitations were on full display, as a clunky 2-of-7 shooting night resulted in a -0.7 offense credit. However, he continued to thrive in the mud, using his relentless motor to grab 7 rebounds and block 2 shots (above his 1.7 average). His connective defensive traits (+1.3 defense) kept him viable even when his scoring touch completely vanished.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 25.8m
7
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Duren struggled to establish his usual interior dominance, managing just 7 points on 3-of-7 shooting while turning the ball over 3 times. He still made his presence felt defensively with 9 contests and 2 blocks, driving a +2.5 defense credit. However, his inability to finish efficiently around the rim severely capped his overall offensive influence (+1.5 offense).

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +9.5
Defense -4.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 22.6m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Harris endured a catastrophic shooting night, missing all six of his field goal attempts to finish 74% below his scoring average. Despite the offensive disappearing act, he salvaged some value through sheer effort, logging 8 contests and 2 deflections to earn a +3.5 hustle credit. His ability to draw fouls (5-of-6 FT) barely kept his +1.2 offense credit afloat during a brutal slump.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 28.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Sasser embraced a microwave scoring role off the bench, launching 9 three-pointers to finish well above his season average with 9 points. While his overall efficiency was poor (3-of-12 FG), his willingness to let it fly generated a +4.4 offense credit by keeping the defense honest. He also chipped in with 4 contests and 2 deflections, showing a surprisingly active motor (+2.7 hustle) despite the clunky shooting.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Robinson's lethal perimeter gravity was on full display, as he drilled 3-of-5 from deep to stretch the defense and anchor a +4.8 offense credit. However, his one-dimensional nature was exposed on the other end, where opponents hunted him relentlessly and shot a perfect 3-of-3 when he was the nearest defender. Three turnovers further complicated an otherwise brilliant shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -45.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Caris LeVert 16.6m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

LeVert provided a highly efficient scoring punch off the bench, knocking down 60% of his shots to nearly double his season average with 11 points. This sudden burst of perimeter marksmanship (2-of-4 from deep) drove a strong +8.5 offense credit. However, his defensive rotations were frequently exploited, allowing opponents to shoot a staggering 80% when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 8.2m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Reed struggled to find his typical finishing touch, managing just 4 points on 2-of-5 shooting in a quiet eight-minute stint. Despite the lack of scoring, his screen-setting (3 screen assists) helped free up shooters and salvaged a +6.8 offense credit. He was largely invisible on the defensive end, failing to register a single block or steal, leading to a -0.1 defense mark.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Stewart's brief six-minute shift was defined by a complete lack of rebounding, failing to grab a single board despite his typical role as a physical enforcer. He managed to be perfectly efficient on his lone shot attempt to secure a +3.2 offense credit, but his defensive presence was lacking (-1.1 defense). He simply couldn't impose his physical will in such a limited window.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Holland II logged a brief, low-impact shift where he struggled to leave a significant mark on the game. He knocked down one three-pointer for a +1.3 offense credit but was otherwise a non-factor offensively. His effort levels remained steady (+1.2 hustle), though he lacked the explosive bursts that define his peak performances.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tolu Smith 5.4m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Smith made a massive defensive impact in just five minutes, completely shutting down his assignments by holding them to 0-of-3 shooting. This stifling interior presence drove a stellar +4.6 defense credit. He also capitalized on his limited offensive touches, finishing a perfect 2-of-2 from the floor to round out a highly efficient cameo with a +2.0 offense mark.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Lanier couldn't find the bottom of the net, missing both of his shot attempts to post a -1.2 offense credit in a brief appearance. He did manage to hold his own defensively, forcing opponents into an 0-of-3 shooting clip when guarded to earn a +0.7 defense mark. Ultimately, his inability to score rendered his minutes mostly hollow.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 36.0m
21
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+23.7

Mobley was an absolute two-way terror, completely erasing his matchup by holding opponents to a dismal 3-of-16 shooting clip when guarded to drive a massive +11.6 defense credit. His elite rim protection was matched by highly efficient scoring (7-of-10 FG) and playmaking (6 assists), which anchored a +18.6 offense mark. He dictated the terms of the game on both ends, functioning as the ultimate two-way hub.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/11 (54.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +11.4
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S James Harden 35.9m
9
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.9

A brutal shooting slump derailed Harden's impact, as he completely lost his perimeter touch (0-of-6 from deep) and managed just 9 points. While he still facilitated the offense with 6 assists to salvage a +3.2 offense credit, his inability to score efficiently crippled his overall value. The lack of scoring gravity severely limited his ability to dictate the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +40.2
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -6.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
26
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+21.1

Mitchell orchestrated the offense flawlessly, pairing his typical scoring volume with exceptional decision-making to avoid a single turnover (avg 2.7). This pristine ball security and high-level playmaking (8 assists) fueled a massive +22.1 offense credit. He also locked in defensively, holding his primary matchups to just 4-of-14 shooting to round out a complete performance.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +16.3
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Max Strus 27.6m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.9

Strus made his mark on the defensive end, stifling his primary assignments to a mere 3-of-11 shooting while generating three steals (well above his 0.5 average). This disruptive perimeter presence fueled a +6.3 defense credit, compensating for a quiet night from beyond the arc (1-of-5). His +8.2 offense credit suggests he still found ways to move the ball and space the floor effectively without dominating the box score.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jarrett Allen 24.8m
23
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.2

A masterclass in interior aggression defined Allen's night, as he demanded the ball and bullied his way to 23 points to drive a +16.4 offense credit. His activity extended beyond scoring, with 9 contests and 4 deflections highlighting a relentless motor that earned him a +4.4 hustle mark. He consistently punished the defense inside, drawing fouls and converting efficiently around the basket.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/13 (53.8%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +8.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Sam Merrill 25.3m
23
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.0

Merrill erupted as a lethal sharpshooter off the bench, torching the defense with 5-of-8 shooting from beyond the arc to post 23 points. This blistering perimeter efficiency completely warped the opposing defensive scheme and drove a massive +19.6 offense credit. When his jumper is falling at this clip, he transforms from a fringe rotation piece into an unstoppable offensive weapon.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +40.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +20.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Dean Wade 20.9m
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Wade operated as a low-usage connector, taking only the shots the defense gave him to finish perfectly from the floor (2-of-2). His +8.0 offense credit reflects his ability to keep the ball moving and space the floor without forcing the issue. He quietly chipped in on the glass with 6 rebounds, executing his role flawlessly despite a lack of raw box-score production.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Schröder faded into offensive irrelevance, attempting just a single shot in 18 minutes while turning the ball over twice. His +3.6 defense credit shows he remained engaged on the other end, holding his matchups to 1-of-5 shooting, but his complete lack of scoring aggression neutralized his value. The playmaking (3 assists) wasn't enough to offset his disappearing act as a scoring threat, leading to a meager +2.2 offense mark.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +37.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.4

Bryant's brief stint was marred by empty-calorie chucking, as he missed all four of his field goal attempts to generate a -2.2 offense credit. He managed to grab 4 rebounds in just 4 minutes, but his erratic shot selection actively harmed the offensive flow. This performance highlighted his struggles to find a rhythm in limited, volatile rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Porter Jr. provided a brief, steadying presence in his limited four minutes of action, converting his only look inside the arc. His +1.7 offense credit reflects a quiet but mistake-free shift where he kept the ball moving. He didn't force the issue, executing basic sets without bleeding value.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Tomlin made the most of his brief four-minute appearance, immediately injecting energy with a steal and a perfect 1-of-1 from the floor. His activity on the less glamorous end earned a +3.0 defense credit, showcasing his raw athletic tools. He managed to be a positive disruptor without needing heavy volume, securing a +2.0 offense mark in the process.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 4.0m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Ellis knocked down his only perimeter look to secure a +1.1 offense credit, but otherwise struggled to leave a footprint in his four minutes. A live-ball turnover and a lack of peripheral stats highlighted his difficulty in carving out a reliable rhythm. His shift was a fleeting flash of marksmanship without much connective tissue.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Tyson was a complete ghost during his four minutes on the floor, failing to register a single point, rebound, or assist. His -0.6 offense credit reflects a completely hollow shift where he couldn't find a way to impact the game. He simply existed on the court without altering the flow of play.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0