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

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 29.9m
24
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.2

A volume-heavy approach yielded diminishing returns as he settled for heavily contested floaters late in the shot clock. While his perimeter shot-making kept the defense honest, the sheer number of empty possessions capped his overall influence. He survived defensively by hiding on weaker assignments, resulting in a marginal net positive.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bub Carrington 25.9m
4
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.8

Relentless ball pressure and loose-ball recoveries couldn't compensate for a complete lack of scoring gravity. Defenders aggressively sagged off him in the half-court, effectively shrinking the floor and clogging driving lanes for the primary options. The offensive spacing issues ultimately outweighed his commendable defensive grit.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 25.1m
23
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.7

Showcasing elite two-way versatility, he protected the rim in drop coverage while seamlessly switching onto smaller guards. His aggressive rim-running forced the defense to collapse, creating wide-open perimeter looks for teammates. He broke out of a recent slump by demanding the ball in the post and finishing with decisive authority.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Kyshawn George 24.9m
6
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.0

Impact cratered due to poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact in the paint. He repeatedly stalled the offense by holding the ball against set defenses, allowing the opposition to load up on the strong side. Even his activity on the glass couldn't mask the damage done by his stagnant half-court decision-making.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -33.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 20.3m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Methodical isolation scoring was entirely negated by sluggish transition defense and late closeouts on the perimeter. He successfully hunted mismatches in the mid-post, but the resulting defensive compromises balanced out his offensive bounce-back. A perfectly neutral shift where his scoring gravity was offset by defensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Johnson 29.1m
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Ill-advised, early-clock jumpers allowed the opponent to dictate the transition pace and erased his positive box score contributions. Although he found some success attacking closeouts, his tunnel vision in the paint led to stalled possessions. The scoring uptick was heavily mitigated by poor defensive awareness on back-door cuts.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense -5.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Whitmore 20.5m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

Erratic decision-making on the fast break resulted in wasted advantages and live-ball turnovers. He brought excellent physicality to the defensive glass, but his tendency to over-help left shooters wide open on the weak side. The raw athleticism was evident, but a lack of systemic discipline severely hurt the team's flow.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Because the defense aggressively top-sided his screens, he was denied any clean catch-and-shoot opportunities. Without his perimeter gravity, the half-court offense became noticeably congested. His struggles to impact the game without the ball in his hands led to a highly detrimental rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.0%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Defensive liabilities in space were repeatedly exposed as guards targeted him relentlessly in high pick-and-roll action. While he stretched the floor adequately on offense, he gave those points right back by failing to contest at the rim. The inability to anchor the paint negated his efficient perimeter touch.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Completely neutralized by the opposing frontcourt's physicality, he failed to establish any meaningful post position. His inability to secure defensive rebounds in traffic gave the opponent crucial second-chance opportunities. A sharp decline from recent performances, characterized by passive screens and slow defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -67.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 9.2m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Instead of attacking the seams of the defense, he floated on the perimeter and struggled to find the rhythm of the game. His hesitation to let it fly off the catch allowed the defense to recover and reset. A passive outing where he failed to replicate the aggressive downhill mentality of his recent stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Manufacturing value entirely through sheer aggression, he drew crucial fouls in the paint to generate points while the clock was stopped. His timely baseline cuts punished a sleeping defense, even without registering a made field goal. A gritty, opportunistic shift that provided a necessary jolt of energy.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 4.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Overwhelmed by the speed of the game during a brief stint, he struggled to navigate through screens defensively. His lack of physical strength was exploited on switches, forcing the defense into emergency rotations. He failed to execute the offensive sets, leading to a disjointed and negative stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Operating primarily as a passive ball-mover, he was unable to leave a footprint on the game during a fleeting appearance. The offense lacked thrust with him at the helm, settling into predictable perimeter swings. A non-factor whose brief minutes coincided with a minor opponent run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -130.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.5
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Inserted strictly to eat minutes, he struggled to match the intensity of the opposing frontcourt. A couple of missed defensive assignments in the paint allowed easy layups, slightly dragging down his impact score. He failed to replicate his recent efficiency in a highly constrained role.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 34.9m
20
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Scoring efficiency was completely undermined by poor transition defense and late-game turnovers. Despite finding his stroke from the perimeter, his inability to stay in front of straight-line drives surrendered easy points. The negative overall impact reflects empty-calorie production during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 34.6m
38
pts
13
reb
13
ast
Impact
+39.2

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll completely dismantled the opponent's defensive shell. He dictated the tempo with elite hit-ahead passes and exploited switching bigs with deep pull-up gravity. This dominant offensive explosion was perfectly complemented by active hands in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +29.1
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +8.9
Hustle +11.7
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Collin Sexton 33.0m
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.2

By decisively attacking the teeth of the defense, he maintained his recent hot streak, though over-dribbling slightly capped his value. His point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's initiation, forcing multiple late-clock heaves. Ultimately, aggressive downhill drives easily offset his occasional defensive gambles.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +17.3
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 32.1m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.9

Relentless activity on the glass and timely defensive rotations salvaged a rough perimeter shooting night. He consistently attacked closeouts to create secondary actions, masking his struggles from beyond the arc. His physical containment on the wing proved essential to maintaining the team's defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Foul trouble and tentative positioning in the drop scheme limited his overall effectiveness. While he generated extra possessions through sheer effort on the offensive glass, he failed to establish deep post position against undersized matchups. The lack of scoring punch stalled the half-court offense during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.1

Anchoring the second unit, he provided exceptional rim deterrence and disciplined verticality against driving guards. He feasted on dump-off passes by sealing his man early in the possession, continuing his streak of highly efficient finishing. His screen-setting angles consistently freed up the guards for clean downhill looks.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +12.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Sion James 20.3m
13
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.7

Breaking out of a severe shooting slump, he confidently stepped into rhythm looks generated by inside-out ball movement. His lateral quickness at the point of attack completely neutralized the opposing backup guards. This unexpected two-way surge provided a massive momentum swing during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +5.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

During a brief stint, he maximized his floor time by playing strictly within his role and executing flawless weak-side rotations. His vertical spacing drew the rim protector away, opening up driving lanes for the primary handlers. A highly efficient shift defined by disciplined positioning and zero wasted motion.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg +53.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Tre Mann 12.1m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

Offensive rhythm vanished entirely as he forced contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds ignited opponent fast breaks, severely punishing the transition defense. Failing to leverage his quickness to collapse the paint rendered his floor time highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

Struggling to adapt to the game's physicality, he was easily dislodged off his spots on both ends of the floor. He rushed his perimeter attempts against heavy closeouts instead of keeping the ball moving. The brief appearance was further marred by defensive miscommunications that led to open corner looks.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

In a chaotic late-quarter stretch, he provided a brief but stabilizing presence in the paint. Executing a crucial dribble hand-off sequence settled the offense when the primary sets broke down. He did exactly what was required in a situational deployment without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +83.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, he injected immediate offensive value by finding soft spots in the zone. He showed veteran savvy by cutting baseline when the defense over-helped on the strong side. A quick, productive burst that maximized limited touches.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +130.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0