GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Alex Sarr 30.4m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Put on a defensive clinic by utilizing his massive wingspan to erase shots at the rim and disrupt passing lanes. His relentless motor on the offensive glass generated a massive hustle score and crucial extra possessions. While his perimeter touch was absent, his sheer physical dominance inside and elite rim protection dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +6.4
Defense +11.3
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 30.4m -21.3
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 28.8m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Impact cratered by a series of defensive breakdowns, as he constantly lost his man back-door and failed to navigate screens. While he found success scoring from the midrange, his tendency to stop the ball for contested isolation looks disrupted the offensive flow. The steep negative total reflects a classic empty-calories performance where his individual shot-making was entirely offset by what he gave back defensively.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 28.8m -20.2
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 28.1m
6
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-18.3

An absolute disaster offensively, as a barrage of forced shots and telegraphed passes completely derailed the team's momentum. The staggering negative impact was driven by live-ball turnovers that fed an endless loop of opponent fast breaks. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't stop the bleeding caused by his catastrophic decision-making and poor shot quality.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 28.1m -19.7
Impact -18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 27.9m
25
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Got incredibly hot from beyond the arc, but his shot selection was erratic, launching several ill-advised transition threes that led to long rebounds. He was mercilessly hunted on defense during the fourth quarter, bleeding points in isolation matchups and committing costly fouls. The scoring volume was impressive, but the defensive concessions and poor game management resulted in a net negative.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 27.9m -19.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 21.9m
4
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.9

Looked completely disengaged offensively, passing up open looks and failing to apply any pressure on the rim. His lack of aggression allowed the defense to ignore him, completely stalling the half-court sets and leading to late-clock turnovers. The massive negative impact is a direct result of passive play and sluggish defensive transitions that gave up easy points.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 21.9m -15.3
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Flew around the court with reckless abandon, generating a massive hustle score through deflections and loose ball recoveries. Unfortunately, his chaotic style also led to blown defensive coverages and costly fouls on the other end. The energy was infectious, but the lack of discipline ultimately resulted in a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 20.2m -14.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.9

Played a nearly flawless complementary game, attacking closeouts decisively and finishing with superb shot selection. His defensive awareness was a pleasant surprise, as he consistently made the right weak-side rotations to cut off baseline drives without fouling. A highly impactful two-way shift defined by smart spacing and opportunistic scoring.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 20.2m -14.3
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Couldn't buy a bucket from the floor, but salvaged his impact entirely through sheer willpower on the glass and elite defensive positioning. He single-handedly ended multiple opponent possessions by securing tough contested rebounds in traffic and generating key hustle plays. A gritty, blue-collar performance that proved you can positively impact the game despite a string of missed shots.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 18.9m -13.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Struggled mightily to finish through contact, missing all of his attempts around the basket due to poor shot quality. However, he kept himself relevant by crashing the boards relentlessly and providing adequate verticality on defense. His high-energy hustle plays managed to offset his complete lack of offensive touch.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 11.7m -8.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 10.3m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, hesitating on open looks and failing to execute offensive sets. He was consistently late navigating through off-ball screens, putting the defense in constant rotation and committing cheap fouls. A rough developmental shift where his lack of assertiveness and missed shots were heavily penalized by the opposition.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 10.3m -7.2
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 8.8m
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Failed to organize the offense effectively, settling for contested floaters instead of probing the defense for better shot quality. His slight frame was easily exploited on the other end, as stronger guards bullied him on their way to the rim. The negative impact reflects a stint where he was physically overmatched, leading to defensive breakdowns and empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 8.8m -6.2
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Knocked down his only attempts efficiently, but his heavy feet on defense made him a liability in pick-and-roll coverage. The opponent aggressively targeted his lack of lateral mobility, forcing defensive collapses that led to open threes and foul costs. A brief appearance where his defensive limitations completely outweighed his shooting touch.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 5.9m -4.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Rushed his offensive process during a brief stint, forcing a bad shot and completely missing a defensive assignment in transition. His inability to grasp the defensive scheme led to immediate breakdowns, forcing a quick hook from the coaching staff. A highly erratic few minutes that actively harmed the team's rhythm through poor discipline.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 4.9m -3.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Executed his role perfectly in a fleeting appearance, spacing the floor and knocking down a quick perimeter look. Didn't make any mistakes defensively, maintaining the team's structure during a transitional lineup without committing fouls. A completely neutral, mistake-free cameo defined by solid positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -73.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 1.9m -1.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Darius Garland 28.3m
20
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.8

High-level playmaking masked a sloppy floor game marred by careless live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent transition runs. While he generated excellent looks for his teammates, his defensive impact was marginal, frequently dying on screens. The massive gap between his box production and neutral total impact perfectly illustrates the hidden cost of his ball-security issues.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +37.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 28.3m -19.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 27.9m
18
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Elite rim protection and switchability drove a strong defensive rating, completely neutralizing the opponent's pick-and-roll attack. However, his overall impact was heavily muted by poor shot selection, settling for outside looks instead of punishing mismatches inside. A handful of costly offensive fouls on moving screens further dragged down his net score.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.4
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 27.9m -19.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 26.0m
16
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.3

Completely controlled the paint on both ends, anchoring the defense by altering everything at the rim without fouling. His massive hustle score was fueled by relentless work on the offensive glass, creating numerous second-chance opportunities. This was a masterclass in dominating the interior through sheer physicality and elite shot quality.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +44.9
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +6.5
Defense +10.5
Raw total +36.6
Avg player in 26.0m -18.3
Impact +18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
24
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.7

A phenomenal two-way performance highlighted by suffocating point-of-attack defense that completely disrupted the opponent's initiation. Offensively, his shot quality was superb, leveraging his gravity to create wide-open looks from deep while avoiding costly turnovers. He dictated the tempo of the game perfectly, punishing drop coverage every time they gave him an inch.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +11.9
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 25.6m -18.0
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S De'Andre Hunter 21.3m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Brutal shot selection from the perimeter tanked his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the clock. Despite strong on-ball defensive metrics and active hands in the passing lanes, his inability to space the floor allowed the defense to collapse. The negative overall impact reflects how much his empty possessions and missed shots stalled the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 21.3m -15.0
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylon Tyson 23.4m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggled to find a rhythm within the offensive flow, often holding the ball too long and disrupting the team's spacing. While his individual defensive metrics were passable, he consistently missed weak-side rotations that led to easy corner threes. The negative overall impact stems from a disjointed stint where poor shot selection and defensive lapses bled points.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 23.4m -16.4
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.3

Caught fire from the perimeter, punishing under-screens with a barrage of high-arcing triples that supercharged his offensive value. However, his defensive fundamentals were shaky, frequently getting blown by on straight-line drives and committing silly reaching fouls. The scoring explosion carried his overall impact, but his inability to contain the ball prevented a truly dominant rating.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 116.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 18.8m -13.1
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Merrill 18.4m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Lethal off-ball movement and elite shot preparation punished defensive miscommunications all night. His gravity as a shooter opened up driving lanes for everyone else, driving a highly positive offensive impact without turning the ball over. Held up surprisingly well in isolation defense, avoiding the foul trouble that usually limits his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 18.4m -12.9
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Lack of shooting gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, severely bogging down the second-unit offense. He was repeatedly targeted in the pick-and-roll on the other end, resulting in a negative defensive score. A few timely hustle plays couldn't salvage a stint defined by missed shots and defensive vulnerability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense -1.7
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 15.9m -11.2
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Provided a steadying veteran presence with smart connective passing, but his reluctance to look at the rim hurt the overall offensive geometry. He was a step slow on closeouts, allowing uncontested perimeter looks that dragged his net impact into the red. A quiet shift where foul costs and passive play prevented him from leaving a physical imprint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 14.2m -9.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

Made his mark entirely through high-IQ positional defense, blowing up several dribble hand-offs with perfect anticipation. He didn't demand the ball offensively, instead making quick decisions that kept the advantage rolling without committing turnovers. A textbook example of a low-usage role player driving winning basketball through sheer defensive execution and hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 8.5m -5.9
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Maximized a brief cameo by playing with tremendous verticality at the rim, racking up a stellar defensive score in limited action. He set bone-crushing screens that freed up the guards for easy downhill attacks. Brought an immediate jolt of energy that stabilized the interior rotation during a crucial stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 5.9m -4.1
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Showcased intriguing fluidity for his size, finishing smoothly around the basket when the defense rotated late. Held his ground well on the perimeter after switches, contributing to a solid defensive rating without fouling. A highly efficient burst of production that capitalized on broken plays and transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 5.9m -4.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0