GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Julian Reese 36.1m
17
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Dominated the interior with relentless physicality, generating elite defensive and hustle metrics. His ability to consistently finish through contact in the paint established a reliable offensive hub that wore down the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +6.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 36.1m -21.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 4
S Bub Carrington 31.6m
14
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-17.3

Poor perimeter shot selection stalled out multiple possessions and allowed the defense to dictate the tempo. A lack of defensive resistance and low hustle metrics further compounded the damage from his missed jumpers, resulting in a severely negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 31.6m -19.3
Impact -17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Leaky Black 23.9m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.5

Complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to punish closeouts or hit open jumpers cratered the lineup's spacing and overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -59.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 23.9m -14.6
Impact -14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bilal Coulibaly 23.8m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Slashed through defensive gaps with remarkable efficiency, punishing over-rotations with decisive drives. His length disrupted passing lanes, translating into a highly productive two-way showing that easily outpaced his recent averages.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 23.8m -14.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Anthony Gill 15.5m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Capitalized on every touch with flawless perimeter execution and smart cuts to the basket. His veteran defensive positioning and timely hustle plays provided a massive stabilizing presence for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -40.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.4
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 15.5m -9.5
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Will Riley 30.7m
2
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-24.1

An absolute offensive nightmare defined by forced shots, shattered confidence, and a total inability to find the bottom of the net. The sheer volume of wasted possessions completely tanked the team's momentum and resulted in a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/13 (7.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 7.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense -13.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total -5.4
Avg player in 30.7m -18.7
Impact -24.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Excellent defensive instincts and high-motor rebounding were completely negated by a disastrous shooting performance. By forcing contested perimeter looks, he actively derailed the offensive flow and dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +10.1
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 29.2m -17.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
17
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.4

Scoring efficiency was entirely overshadowed by a porous defensive effort that bled points at the point of attack. The inability to generate hustle plays or contain penetration turned his minutes into a significant liability despite the hot shooting.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.4
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 27.1m -16.6
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
13
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Settled for low-percentage perimeter heaves instead of utilizing his physical tools to attack the rim. This poor shot diet combined with a lack of off-ball hustle to drag down what could have been a productive outing.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -3.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 21.9m -13.4
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Collin Sexton 30.3m
15
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.7

Overcame a brutal perimeter shooting night by relentlessly attacking passing lanes and generating elite defensive value. His high-motor hustle metrics and playmaking gravity compensated for the bricked jumpers, keeping his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +11.4
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 30.3m -18.4
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Offensive rhythm completely stalled due to clunky perimeter attempts and an inability to finish through contact. While his defensive positioning remained sound, the sheer volume of missed jumpers created a noticeable drag on the unit's net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 26.9m -16.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Jones 26.7m
20
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+10.8

Masterful floor generalship and high-percentage interior finishes drove a massive positive impact. By completely ignoring the three-point line and focusing on probing the paint, he dictated the tempo and maintained his streak of elite efficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 26.7m -16.2
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Leonard Miller 25.1m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Perimeter shot selection dragged down an otherwise solid interior performance, as a barrage of missed threes limited his offensive ceiling. Strong defensive metrics kept his overall impact slightly above water despite the poor spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 25.1m -15.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Isaac Okoro 16.3m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Continued his streak of highly efficient shot selection to anchor a positive offensive rating. Defensive activity and timely hustle plays provided a steady two-way boost during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 16.3m -9.8
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+23.4

Erupted for a massive breakout performance fueled by pristine shot selection and lockdown defensive metrics. His sudden perimeter gravity completely warped the opponent's defensive shell, resulting in a dominant two-way impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +19.9
Raw total +42.8
Avg player in 31.9m -19.4
Impact +23.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
26
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

A scorching hot perimeter display stretched the defense to its breaking point and generated immense offensive value. His ability to hunt high-quality looks from deep masked any defensive shortcomings and drove a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +42.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 27.1m -16.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Provided sturdy rim protection and excellent defensive positioning to anchor the second unit. His low-usage, high-efficiency offensive approach ensured he didn't waste possessions, maximizing his value in a condensed role.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 21.1m -12.9
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Mac McClung 18.2m
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Struggled to find a rhythm as defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of his man bled points. The lack of secondary playmaking or scoring punch meant his minutes were a net negative for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 18.2m -11.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Faded into the background offensively, failing to generate enough pressure or playmaking to positively influence the game flow. A lack of overall aggression and minimal hustle contributions left his team vulnerable during his shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 16.4m -9.9
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0