GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 38.1m
15
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Despite solid defensive metrics and active hustle, a string of empty offensive possessions and missed assignments in transition dragged his total impact into the red. His inability to convert efficiently inside the arc stalled several key drives. The underlying numbers suggest he competed hard, but poor execution on finishing plays proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 38.1m -19.3
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Cooper Flagg 35.0m
20
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.1

Elite defensive playmaking and weak-side rim protection drove a highly positive impact, completely overshadowing a dip in his usual scoring efficiency. He missed a ton of shots, largely from settling for contested jumpers, but his relentless motor and ability to blow up pick-and-rolls dictated the game's tempo. The defensive dominance provided a massive safety net for his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense +11.3
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 35.0m -17.7
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Max Christie 27.5m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

An uptick in scoring volume masked underlying inefficiencies, as poor shot selection and likely defensive miscommunications resulted in a negative overall impact. He struggled to generate quality looks, settling for contested perimeter shots that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The lack of secondary hustle plays meant he couldn't offset the damage from his missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.5m -13.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 24.7m
15
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.6

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive positive impact score. He converted nearly every look around the rim while simultaneously anchoring the defense with elite rim protection and timely rotations. His vertical spacing and flawless finishing punished the opponent's interior defense relentlessly.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +10.6
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 24.7m -12.7
Impact +18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
9
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Impact cratered due to a high volume of missed mid-range jumpers and defensive apathy at the point of attack. The offense bogged down significantly during his shifts, as he failed to bend the defense or create easy looks for teammates. His inability to stay in front of his matchup allowed straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 20.7m -10.5
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.7

A stark drop in offensive aggressiveness severely limited his effectiveness, as he passed up open looks and allowed the defense to sag off him. While he remained engaged defensively, the lack of scoring gravity cramped the floor for the rest of the unit. His hesitation to attack closeouts disrupted the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 25.9m -13.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Timely perimeter shot-making and fundamentally sound positional defense resulted in a perfectly balanced, slightly positive impact. He didn't force the issue offensively, taking what the defense gave him and stretching the floor effectively to open up driving lanes. The veteran savvy showed in his defensive rotations, preventing easy kick-out opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 21.4m -10.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Strong point-of-attack defense and active hands in passing lanes drove a highly effective stint off the bench. Even with a dip in his usual scoring output, his ability to pressure the ball and generate deflections kept the opponent out of their offensive sets. The two-way energy he provided was a crucial stabilizing force for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 18.7m -9.5
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A completely ineffective ten-minute shift was defined by a lack of physicality and an inability to secure the defensive glass. He offered zero offensive threat, allowing the opposing bigs to roam freely as help defenders. The lack of rim deterrence made his minutes highly exploitable.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 10.1m -5.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 10.1m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

A disastrous offensive stint characterized by forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that completely derailed the team's momentum. The total inability to convert on his attempts allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game repeatedly. Coming off a strong scoring stretch, this performance was a glaring black hole for the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 10.1m -5.2
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A fleeting appearance yielded virtually no statistical footprint, with a single missed shot defining his offensive involvement. He was unable to impact the game defensively during the short stint, blending into the background of the rotation. The minimal court time prevented him from establishing any positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -77.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 4.2m -2.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely saw the floor, logging just over three minutes of disjointed action. A quick defensive lapse or a blown rotation during that brief window was enough to push his impact slightly negative. He simply didn't have the runway to establish any sort of rhythm or presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 3.5m -1.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.1m
11
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
0.0

Despite a brutal shooting night characterized by a high volume of missed perimeter shots, his defensive activity and high-end hustle metrics completely offset the offensive drag. He stayed engaged off the ball, generating enough stops and loose-ball recoveries to salvage a neutral overall impact. The stark drop in scoring volume was masked by his relentless effort on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +8.8
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 38.1m -19.3
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Herbert Jones 35.0m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

A surprise surge in scoring efficiency combined with his usual defensive menace kept his overall impact slightly in the green. However, a few costly defensive gambles or uncharacteristic lapses likely prevented a higher total score despite the strong underlying metrics. His ability to convert efficiently inside the arc provided a much-needed secondary scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 35.0m -17.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 29.6m
22
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Searing perimeter efficiency drove a massive box-score advantage, as he consistently punished defensive rotations from deep. While his hustle metrics were relatively quiet, the sheer quality of his shot selection and conversion rate overwhelmed the opponent. His ability to space the floor effectively dictated the offensive flow whenever he was out there.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 29.6m -15.0
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 25.4m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.3

A heavy diet of forced, low-percentage jumpers severely dragged down his overall impact, cratering his offensive efficiency. The defensive metrics show he competed on that end, but the sheer volume of empty possessions and missed threes derailed the offense's rhythm. His inability to adjust his shot selection when the perimeter look wasn't falling proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 25.4m -13.0
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kevon Looney 15.0m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite positional awareness and timely offensive rebounding anchored a highly productive stint. He generated crucial second-chance opportunities that kept possessions alive, maximizing his value without needing plays called for him. The interior stability he provided was a major catalyst for the team's positive differential.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 15.0m -7.7
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Derik Queen 25.9m
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Bruising physical play and high-level defensive metrics kept his impact positive despite continued struggles to finish around the rim. He made his presence felt by contesting shots and securing crucial 50/50 balls, masking the inefficiency of his interior touches. The raw effort level dictated his value far more than his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.6%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +7.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 25.9m -13.2
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

A massive, unexpected scoring outburst from beyond the arc fueled a strong box-score showing. However, his overall impact was muted, suggesting that defensive breakdowns or off-ball lapses gave back much of what he generated offensively. The timely perimeter shot-making was essential, even if his typical point-of-attack disruption wasn't as pronounced.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 22.6m -11.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Coming off a stretch of red-hot shooting, a sudden regression to the mean resulted in a barrage of missed field goals that stalled offensive momentum. He managed to stay afloat defensively, which prevented a steeper negative impact, but the erratic shot quality was glaring. The lack of secondary playmaking meant his value plummeted the moment his jumper stopped falling.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 19.9m -10.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Peavy 18.3m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Complete offensive invisibility and poor defensive positioning resulted in a severely negative stint. Although he flashed some hustle, the inability to space the floor or stay in front of his assignment allowed the opposition to exploit his minutes. Being a non-threat on the perimeter allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.2%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 18.3m -9.2
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A complete lack of offensive involvement rendered him nearly invisible during his brief stint on the floor. While he chipped in with a few hustle plays, the inability to anchor the defense or command touches in the paint left a slight negative footprint. The drop-off from his recent efficient scoring streak was palpable in the half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 10.3m -5.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0