GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 37.5m
24
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Blistering spot-up execution from the corners masked some underlying rotational mistakes that kept his overall impact grounded at +4.4. He provided vital floor-spacing equity, but occasionally lost his man on back-door cuts when ball-watching. Still, his ability to punish late closeouts was a defining feature of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.4
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 37.5m -21.1
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
S Cooper Flagg 32.4m
29
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.1

Relentless downhill attacking and elite finishing through contact produced a massive +15.1 impact score. He completely abandoned the struggling perimeter jumper to feast on smaller defenders in the mid-post, dictating the offensive tempo. A dominant third-quarter stretch of weak-side blocks and transition dunks effectively broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 32.4m -18.1
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Max Christie 31.6m
23
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Lethal catch-and-shoot execution heavily inflated his box score, though a lack of secondary playmaking kept his net impact relatively modest. He operated almost exclusively as a release valve, punishing defensive breakdowns without creating advantages himself. His inability to contain dribble penetration on the other end gave back a chunk of his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.2
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 31.6m -17.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
-14.7

A disastrous shooting performance completely nuked his overall value, resulting in a team-worst -14.7 impact. Opposing defenses entirely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the driving lanes and neutralized the value of his otherwise solid distribution. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions negated any positive contributions he made as an on-ball pest.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.4%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense -7.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 28.3m -16.1
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 6
S Daniel Gafford 25.2m
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Anchoring the paint with disciplined drop coverage yielded a sturdy defensive rating and a positive overall night. He sacrificed his own offensive usage to set bruising screens and seal off driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. A pattern of perfectly timed contests at the rim deterred multiple high-value layup attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 25.2m -14.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.8

Careless ball security and disjointed offensive pacing dragged his net rating deep into the negatives. He repeatedly drove into crowded paint areas without an exit plan, sparking opponent fast breaks through live-ball turnovers. The lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack compounded his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 23.7m -13.4
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

High-energy rim runs and active offensive rebounding generated a solid positive impact in limited action. He excelled at doing the dirty work, creating second-chance opportunities by simply out-working his matchup on the glass. A crucial sequence of altered shots in the paint highlighted his value as a rotational anchor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 17.9m -10.1
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Forced perimeter looks and a complete lack of rhythm yielded a highly damaging -7.4 impact. He short-circuited offensive sets by firing contested jumpers early in the shot clock, effectively handing extra possessions to the opponent. The lack of burst to create separation was glaringly apparent against younger, longer wing defenders.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 16.4m -9.2
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 14.2m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Microwave scoring off the bench was entirely undone by a porous defensive effort. He was routinely targeted in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points faster than he could generate them on the other end. A second-quarter stretch of blown switches perfectly encapsulated his struggles to stay connected defensively.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 14.2m -8.0
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Failed to leave a positive imprint during a short rotation stint, struggling to navigate off-ball screens defensively. His hesitation to attack closeouts stalled the offensive flow and allowed the defense to reset.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 8.2m -4.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Logged a brief, uneventful stint to eat emergency frontcourt minutes. He provided a marginal boost in rim deterrence but was otherwise invisible in the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 4.7m -2.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 35.4m
25
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.7

Relentless rim pressure and defensive disruption fueled a stellar +9.7 overall impact, overcoming a frigid night from the perimeter. His ability to generate high-value looks inside compensated for the outside misses. A pattern of timely closeouts on the wing anchored the Pelicans' defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 35.4m -19.9
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Derik Queen 32.2m
20
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+0.8

Despite a massive surge in offensive usage and playmaking, his overall impact leveled out to a modest +0.8. Defensive lapses in drop coverage and a few costly live-ball turnovers ate into the value generated by his elite passing reads. The scoring volume was a welcome surprise, but underlying metrics suggest he forced the issue late in the clock.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 32.2m -18.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Herbert Jones 32.1m
7
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Elite off-ball navigation and passing-lane disruption couldn't salvage a negative overall footprint. A string of clanked floaters and forced drives in traffic severely dragged down his offensive value. His defensive motor remains unquestioned, but poor shot quality in isolation negated those extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +7.3
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 32.1m -18.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 31.5m
21
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Exceptional point-of-attack defense and pristine shot selection drove a highly productive two-way performance. He punished sagging defenders with decisive perimeter strikes, refusing to waste possessions on low-percentage mid-range looks. That disciplined approach on both ends cemented his positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +9.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 31.5m -17.7
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Zion Williamson 29.6m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.7

Dominant physical mismatches in the paint translated directly to a massive +15.7 net rating. He consistently bullied smaller defenders in the half-court, combining hyper-efficient shot selection with high-level defensive engagement. This two-way physical imposition set the tone for New Orleans' frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.8
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 29.6m -16.5
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.9

Defensive over-aggression and gambling in the passing lanes routinely compromised the team's shell, fueling a harsh -7.9 impact. While he orchestrated a few clever pick-and-roll sequences, the structural damage of losing his man off the ball outweighed the creation. Opposing guards consistently exploited his aggressive closeouts to generate paint touches.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 19.8m -11.1
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Saddiq Bey 18.2m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

A brutal perimeter shooting slump completely cratered his offensive utility, resulting in a steep -5.8 net impact. He repeatedly settled for contested early-clock jumpers that functioned as defacto turnovers for the opposing transition game. While he showed flashes of secondary rim protection, the offensive black hole was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 18.2m -10.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 15.5m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operating strictly as a vertical spacer, he managed a slightly positive impact through disciplined rim-running. A brief second-quarter stretch of altering shots at the summit highlighted his defensive ceiling. However, his overall imprint remained muted due to an inability to establish deep post position.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 15.5m -8.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Micah Peavy 13.5m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Wasted offensive possessions and forced interior attempts dragged his net score into the red. Even with active hands generating loose balls, the inability to finish through contact negated those extra opportunities. Opponents successfully dared him to shoot, stalling the half-court offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 13.5m -7.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

An inability to shake loose from perimeter face-guarding resulted in a highly damaging stint. He forced several heavily contested off-balance looks when the initial action broke down, bleeding value on the offensive end. The lack of secondary playmaking meant he offered zero utility when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 12.2m -6.8
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1