GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Alex Sarr 37.7m
27
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.1

Utter dominance in the paint and elite finishing fueled a massive breakout performance that shattered his recent scoring averages. His staggering defensive impact completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt, making this a masterclass in two-way play despite a high turnover rate. The combination of hyper-efficient interior scoring and suffocating rim protection resulted in a towering net rating.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +23.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense +11.6
Raw total +40.4
Avg player in 37.7m -22.3
Impact +18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 36.8m
46
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.4

An absolute nuclear shooting display from beyond the arc generated an astronomical box score impact that easily masked any turnover issues. His incredible shot-making completely broke the opposing defensive scheme, while solid perimeter defense ensured he gave nothing back. This was a legacy scoring performance defined by unguardable isolation creation that single-handedly carried the offensive load.

Shooting
FG 17/25 (68.0%)
3PT 10/13 (76.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.9%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +35.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +44.2
Avg player in 36.8m -21.8
Impact +22.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 34.2m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.2

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc and a massive penalty from live-ball turnovers dragged down his net rating significantly. He remained a disruptive force on defense, but the inability to convert open looks and protect the ball stalled the offense during his extended minutes. The lack of perimeter spacing ultimately outweighed his solid point-of-attack coverage.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 34.2m -20.3
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 31.2m
10
pts
7
reb
12
ast
Impact
+3.4

Elite playmaking and tremendous hustle defined a performance where he operated as the primary offensive engine, though high turnover volume cut into his net score. While his own shooting efficiency was mediocre, his ability to orchestrate the offense and generate second-chance opportunities drove a positive impact. He successfully traded scoring volume for high-level facilitation and dirty work.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +8.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 31.2m -18.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Corey Kispert 24.5m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.7

Catching fire from the perimeter unlocked a massive scoring surge that heavily tilted the floor in his team's favor. Surprisingly robust defensive execution complemented the outside shooting, proving he was much more than just a floor spacer. This two-way excellence and pristine shot selection drove one of the highest net impacts of the night, easily absorbing a few execution errors.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +10.0
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 24.5m -14.6
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite highly efficient scoring and solid playmaking, a barrage of costly turnovers pulled his overall impact into the red. He generated great hustle metrics, yet struggled to translate that energy into a cohesive two-way presence due to sloppy ball security. The underlying execution issues masked an otherwise pristine shooting line.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 21.9m -12.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

High-level defensive execution anchored a low-usage stint that still yielded a positive overall impact, despite some unseen execution errors. While his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent outings, he maintained flawless shot selection and didn't force the issue. His ability to impact the game without needing the ball defined his steady, disciplined performance.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 17.4m -10.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A sharp reduction in offensive volume limited his ability to influence the game, despite excellent shooting efficiency when he did get touches. He held his own defensively, but the lack of overall aggression and a few minor fouls kept his net impact hovering near zero. The passive approach was a stark contrast to his recent double-digit scoring norm.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -50.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 10.3m -6.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Failing to register any offensive production in limited minutes prevented him from establishing a rhythm. He provided strong point-of-attack defense, but the complete absence of a scoring threat and a couple of quick fouls dragged his net rating into the negatives. His stint was defined entirely by defensive energy without the offensive execution to match.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 9.7m -5.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Forcing up bad shots led to a scoreless outing that actively harmed the team's offensive flow. While he offered mild defensive resistance, the inability to convert on any of his attempts and a couple of turnovers cratered his net rating. The poor shot selection was the defining characteristic of a highly detrimental stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -59.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -3.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 8.5m -5.1
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A fleeting appearance resulted in zero offensive output and a complete lack of rhythm. He was unable to replicate his recent efficient scoring, rendering his minutes largely ineffective as he floated on the perimeter. The short leash prevented him from making any tangible impact on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 2.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A total disappearance on the offensive end stood in stark contrast to his recent high-scoring outbursts. He failed to generate any meaningful looks in his brief time on the court, resulting in a negative net impact. The inability to assert himself quickly doomed his short rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.5m -1.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Operating purely as a cardio player during his brief stint, he failed to log a single statistic of note. The complete lack of offensive aggression or defensive disruption resulted in a slightly negative rating. He was entirely invisible compared to his usual steady production.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 2.5m -1.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.0

A sharp decline in shot-making and a slew of careless turnovers severely punished his net impact. While he remained highly active on the margins with strong hustle plays, the inability to protect the ball or generate his usual offensive output stalled the second unit. The stark contrast from his recent scoring tear highlighted a frustrating, error-prone outing.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 32.4m -19.3
Impact -15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dyson Daniels 32.0m
11
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.7

Impact cratered by a barrage of live-ball turnovers and hidden negative plays that completely erased his positive box metrics. While he generated solid hustle stats and orchestrated the offense, the sheer volume of execution errors pulled his overall rating deep into the red. Cleaning up the sloppy decision-making in transition is necessary to flip his net score.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 32.0m -18.9
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 92.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Johnson 30.1m
7
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-16.2

A severe drop in offensive aggression and a plague of costly turnovers dragged his overall impact deep into the negatives. Missing all of his perimeter attempts cratered his scoring efficiency, severely stalling the offensive flow compared to his usual standard. Despite the shooting woes and execution errors, he still managed to salvage some value through switchable defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.1%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 30.1m -17.8
Impact -16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
17
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.6

An explosive scoring surge well above his recent baseline anchored his highly positive overall impact, though it was slightly dampened by turnover costs. Elite perimeter defense and high-activity hustle plays elevated his profile beyond just outside shooting. His two-way engagement and aggressive shot selection set the tone for the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.7
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 29.9m -17.6
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
22
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

Highly efficient interior touch and a steady diet of quality looks drove a massive positive box score contribution, overcoming a handful of costly fouls. His ability to stretch the floor while maintaining a reliable baseline of production kept the half-court offense humming. Minimal defensive resistance slightly capped his total rating, but his offensive gravity was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 21.8m -13.0
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.6

Expanding his range to knock down multiple perimeter looks unlocked a highly efficient offensive night that drove his positive rating. Capitalizing on favorable frontcourt matchups allowed him to easily exceed his usual scoring baseline, masking some minor turnover issues. Steady defensive positioning ensured he didn't give back the value he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -46.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 19.6m -11.6
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Stepping up his offensive aggression resulted in a noticeable scoring bump that bolstered his underlying metrics. Solid defensive rotations and active hustle kept him perfectly viable in his frontcourt minutes, though foul trouble limited his ceiling. The low overall usage and a few missed assignments meant his net impact barely moved the needle.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 17.9m -10.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 15.2m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.1

Limited touches and modest shooting volume prevented him from generating his usual offensive gravity on the perimeter. A slight negative rating on the defensive end and a few costly turnovers compounded the lack of overall impact, as he was heavily targeted in switches. He struggled to find the open space necessary to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 15.2m -9.0
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Efficient spot-up shooting provided a solid offensive boost, though defensive struggles and sloppy ball security neutralized his overall contribution. He capitalized on his limited touches to generate positive box metrics by taking only high-quality shots. Ultimately, a lack of point-of-attack resistance kept his net impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 14.3m -8.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.9

Complete offensive invisibility and poor ball security doomed his overall rating, as he failed to register a single meaningful attack on the rim. While he offered some resistance on the defensive end, the lack of a scoring threat allowed the defense to completely ignore him. The stark drop-off from his recent efficient play left a massive void in the backcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 13.6m -8.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A brief stint on the floor yielded minimal touches and negligible offensive influence. He managed to stay disciplined defensively, but the sheer lack of volume and a couple of quick fouls prevented any positive momentum. His stint was largely a placeholder performance defined by a lack of involvement in the offensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +53.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 6.7m -3.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 6.7m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Excellent defensive positioning entirely salvaged a scoreless outing where he failed to impact the offensive end. Despite the complete drop-off in his usual scoring efficiency and a couple of turnovers, his ability to disrupt opponent actions kept his net score in the green. He proved that high-IQ rotations can offset a completely quiet shooting night.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +53.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 6.7m -4.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0