GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Alex Sarr 28.0m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Bounced back from a brutal efficiency stretch by anchoring the paint with excellent defensive positioning (+7.0). His length disrupted multiple drives, while active rebounding and solid hustle kept possessions alive. He finally found a rhythm offensively, converting high-percentage looks around the basket to secure a net-positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 28.0m -15.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 26.5m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.1

Plagued by poor shot selection and forced drives, which dragged down his overall effectiveness despite high-end hustle. He was active in the passing lanes and fought hard through screens, but the offensive inefficiency stalled momentum. The missed opportunities at the rim were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 26.5m -14.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 24.2m
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Strong individual shot-making was entirely undone by structural breakdowns during his minutes on the floor. Despite scoring efficiently at all three levels, he struggled to contain dribble penetration, leading to a negative overall impact. The scoring volume simply masked deeper issues with team defensive execution while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 24.2m -13.5
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S CJ McCollum 22.5m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Supplied solid perimeter defense and knocked down outside looks, yet still finished with a slightly negative impact. Struggled to generate consistent rim pressure or collapse the defense, relying too heavily on contested jumpers. The lack of dynamic playmaking limited the ceiling of the offensive units he anchored.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -41.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 22.5m -12.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 20.4m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Showed signs of life with perfect perimeter execution, breaking out of a nasty recent shooting slump. However, his overall impact remained negative due to an inability to consistently separate from physical defenders. Strong hustle metrics showed high effort, but the offensive flow still bogged down during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 20.4m -11.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Tre Johnson 24.7m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

A disastrous shooting performance completely nuked his offensive value, as he forced contested looks early in the shot clock. He salvaged some dignity by competing fiercely on the defensive end (+7.5), sticking to his assignments and fighting over screens. Ultimately, the bricked jumpers were too much for the team to overcome during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.1%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 24.7m -13.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.5

Struggled to orchestrate the offense effectively, leading to a steep drop in his usual scoring and a heavily negative impact score. While his point-of-attack defense was commendable, his inability to break down his primary defender stalled multiple possessions. The lack of offensive rhythm was the primary driver of his poor overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 21.9m -12.2
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Whitmore 15.6m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Played to a near-perfect stalemate, balancing strong physical defense with a few too many forced offensive actions. He brought excellent energy in transition but occasionally missed the extra pass in the half-court. His aggressive downhill style yielded mixed results, keeping his net impact hovering right at zero.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 15.6m -8.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

An absolute non-factor offensively, missing all of his perimeter looks and failing to bend the defense. His struggles compounded on the other end, where he was routinely targeted in isolation. The combination of cold shooting and defensive vulnerability resulted in a team-worst impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.5
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 14.9m -8.3
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

Despite a sharp drop in scoring volume, he generated highly positive value through efficient finishing and excellent spatial awareness. He operated smoothly as a roll man, punishing defensive rotations without forcing his own offense. His ability to capitalize on limited touches ensured the second unit maintained strong momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
AJ Johnson 6.0m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Played a very quiet six minutes, offering zero measurable hustle or defensive impact. While he managed to knock down a shot to boost his usually microscopic scoring average, he largely floated on the perimeter. The lack of physical engagement kept him slightly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 6.0m -3.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 6.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Suffered a massive offensive regression, completely failing to replicate the high-end scoring punch he had been providing recently. He was entirely passive, registering zero hustle plays and struggling to get involved in the half-court flow. The sudden lack of aggression made him a liability during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 6.0m -3.3
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Looked completely lost during his five minutes of action, missing both of his shots and failing to secure the paint. His inability to stretch the floor or offer rim protection allowed opponents to score freely. A stark departure from his recent steady play, resulting in a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -63.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 5.2m -2.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Kept his head above water by executing solid defensive rotations despite a massive drop in his usual scoring output. He didn't force the issue offensively, maintaining his recent streak of efficient shooting on very limited volume. A true low-usage, mistake-free shift that provided mild positive value.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -63.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 5.2m -2.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

His impressive streak of highly efficient scoring came to a screeching halt in a completely invisible four-minute cameo. He offered absolutely nothing in terms of hustle or defensive resistance, simply taking up space on the floor. The lack of energy or execution resulted in a minor negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -77.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.1m -2.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Franz Wagner 30.8m
25
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+19.6

Massive overall positive impact driven by elite two-way play and a sharp scoring surge compared to his recent baseline. Defensive activity and high-energy hustle metrics (+7.1) perfectly complemented his aggressive offensive execution. He consistently punished matchups on the wing to generate a dominant +19.6 total impact.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +7.1
Defense +8.7
Raw total +36.7
Avg player in 30.8m -17.1
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Continued his streak of highly efficient finishing, anchoring the interior with reliable shot selection. Strong positional defense and steady rebounding presence kept his overall impact firmly in the green. He provided exactly the kind of low-maintenance, high-yield frontcourt stability the rotation needed.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 28.0m -15.5
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 26.1m
28
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.6

High-volume shot creation and physical rim pressure fueled a stellar +20.7 box score impact. While his hustle metrics were relatively quiet, his sheer offensive gravity dictated the game's flow. Solid defensive positioning ensured he didn't give back the value he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.4%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.1
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 26.1m -14.6
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Desmond Bane 19.9m
5
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

A severe drop-off in scoring aggression dragged his overall impact slightly below neutral. Despite the offensive struggles, he managed to salvage some value through active perimeter defense and solid hustle plays. The lack of his usual shot-making punch ultimately capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +38.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 19.9m -11.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 19.3m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.0

Overcame a brutal perimeter shooting slump by completely terrorizing opponents on the defensive end (+13.1). Relentless ball pressure and elite hustle metrics more than compensated for his negative box score impact. This was a masterclass in affecting winning without making shots.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +54.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +6.8
Defense +13.1
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 19.3m -10.7
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.7

Failed to leave a meaningful footprint on the game, resulting in a significantly negative overall rating. While his individual defensive metrics were passable, an inability to consistently bend the defense or generate high-leverage plays limited his effectiveness. The team simply bled value during his rotation minutes due to offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 24.6m -13.7
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

A steep decline in offensive production and poor shot selection cratered his overall impact score. Though he offered mild resistance on the defensive end, his inability to stretch the floor or connect on open looks stalled the offense. He was largely invisible during his stint, failing to replicate his recent scoring rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 21.9m -12.2
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 20.0m
15
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+20.8

Exploded for a massively impactful performance highlighted by elite rim protection and hyper-efficient interior finishing. He capitalized on every given opportunity, shattering his recent scoring averages while dominating the paint. His physical screen-setting and vertical spacing completely changed the complexion of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +12.1
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 20.0m -11.1
Impact +20.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Delivered a surprisingly muted defensive performance by his lofty standards, failing to generate his usual disruptive event rates. While highly efficient with his limited offensive touches, he couldn't stamp his authority on the game's tempo. The rotation simply lost ground during his minutes despite his individual efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 15.9m -8.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 14.7m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Found his offensive footing after a recent scoreless stretch, providing steady playmaking and efficient floaters. However, defensive limitations against quicker guards slightly negated his positive offensive contributions. The overall impact hovered near neutral as his steady hand couldn't fully offset the defensive bleed.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 14.7m -8.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 6.8m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.5

Maximized a brief rotation cameo by operating as a highly disruptive defensive presence. Quick rotations and active hands fueled a massive positive swing in just under seven minutes of action. He also flashed unexpected offensive confidence, burying a perimeter look to shatter his usual microscopic scoring baseline.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +58.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.8
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 6.8m -3.7
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Completely vanished during his brief stint, registering zero hustle stats and failing to impact the flow of the game. The offense stagnated with him on the floor, as his inability to pressure the rim or create separation was glaring. A stark regression from his recent highly efficient outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 6.0m -3.3
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Managed to stay in the positive despite a dip in his usual scoring volume by making quick, decisive reads. Kept the ball moving effectively and avoided costly mistakes during his short run. His floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for others, even when his own shots weren't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 6.0m -3.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0