GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 32.1m
17
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Controlled the tempo beautifully, using his veteran savvy to navigate pick-and-rolls and generate a +13.1 box score impact. Surprisingly stout positional defense (+3.7) prevented guards from turning the corner against him. This steady, two-way execution resulted in a positive +2.0 net score that anchored the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 32.1m -17.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyshawn George 31.7m
29
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.5

Lethal floor-spacing and confident trigger mechanics generated a robust +16.8 box score impact. He actively created extra possessions (+4.3 hustle) by fighting through screens and tracking long rebounds. While his on-ball defense (+0.5) was merely passable, his offensive gravity consistently warped the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.5
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 31.7m -17.1
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bilal Coulibaly 27.6m
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

An absolute terror at the point of attack, generating a massive +9.5 defensive impact that completely disrupted the opposing backcourt. Even with his scoring output cut in half, his relentless ball pressure and +3.8 hustle score kept his overall value firmly in the green (+3.3). He proved that elite defensive instincts can dictate a game regardless of offensive touch.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.5
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 27.6m -14.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Khris Middleton 27.4m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Broke out of a recent slump by methodically dissecting mismatches in the mid-post. A solid +3.0 defensive rating showed he was engaged on both ends, though his overall net impact (+0.9) remained muted. The veteran's pacing stabilized the offense during rocky stretches, even if it didn't blow the game open.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 27.4m -14.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 23.1m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Poor spatial awareness on defense (-2.1) allowed opposing bigs to routinely establish deep post position. Compounding the issue, his offensive diet consisted of low-percentage, contested looks that fueled transition opportunities the other way. This lethal combination of defensive lapses and offensive inefficiency cratered his total impact to a team-worst -8.5.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.1
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 23.1m -12.4
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Excellent point-of-attack defense (+3.7) kept opposing guards uncomfortable throughout his stint. However, his offensive passivity and failure to push the pace in transition dragged his total impact down to -2.8. The lack of hustle plays (+0.4) further highlighted a performance that was defensively sound but offensively hollow.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -63.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 20.1m -10.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Johnson 17.0m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

Severe shot-selection issues plagued his minutes, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. This offensive stagnation, paired with a tendency to lose his man off the ball (-1.2 defense), resulted in a brutal -9.6 total impact. The game simply moved too fast for him during this particular rotation cycle.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -65.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 17.0m -9.1
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Struggled to establish any physical presence in the paint, leading to a highly detrimental -5.5 total impact. Opponents easily walled off his post-ups, forcing him into awkward, low-efficiency flips near the basket. Without his usual finishing touch, his minutes became a significant liability for the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 16.8m -9.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Failed to punish defensive rotations as his perimeter stroke completely abandoned him. While he competed admirably on the defensive end (+2.5), his inability to stretch the floor clogged the driving lanes for his teammates. The resulting -1.7 total impact reflects the steep cost of a designated shooter who cannot find the range.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.2m -8.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Whitmore 13.2m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Tunnel vision on drives to the basket limited his ability to elevate the second unit's offensive flow. A lack of defensive playmaking (+0.2) meant he couldn't offset the negative consequences of his forced attempts at the rim. Ultimately, his -2.3 total impact stems from playing outside the offensive system rather than within it.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -41.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 13.2m -7.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Made his mark through disciplined verticality at the rim, securing a strong +2.4 defensive rating in limited action. Active hands and good positioning (+1.7 hustle) compensated for a near-total lack of offensive involvement. This short burst of defensive reliability eked out a positive +0.9 net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 6.6m -3.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A brief, unimpactful shift where he struggled to integrate into the half-court offense. He failed to register any meaningful defensive resistance (0.0), allowing opponents to operate freely in his zones. The slight negative total (-0.5) underscores a passive stint that broke his recent streak of high-efficiency basketball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -95.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 6.5m -3.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 2.7m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Rushed his lone offensive opportunity during a frantic garbage-time appearance. He showed a flash of defensive energy (+0.7), but the sample size was too small to affect the game's outcome. The -0.8 total impact is merely statistical noise from a player trying to do too much in too little time.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
34
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.1

Elite shot-making fueled a massive +27.0 box score impact, easily overcoming average defensive metrics. His ability to hunt high-value looks on the perimeter dictated the offensive flow all night. The resulting +14.1 total impact highlights a dominant scoring stretch where every touch seemed to bend the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +27.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 33.9m -18.4
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 30.2m
17
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.6

Anchored the interior with an imposing +8.6 defensive impact that completely deterred drives to the rim. Capitalizing on high-percentage drop-offs and lobs pushed his offensive value well above his recent baseline. This two-way synergy resulted in a stellar +10.6 net score, defining the team's success in the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.6
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 30.2m -16.4
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 29.7m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite doubling his usual scoring output through opportunistic perimeter shooting, his overall impact slipped into the negative (-0.7). Strong hustle (+5.8) and defensive rotations (+4.7) kept him viable on the floor. However, a lack of secondary playmaking and low overall usage prevented him from driving winning margins during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 29.7m -16.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Terance Mann 29.1m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.8

A brutal diet of contested jumpers dragged his overall impact down to -6.8 despite a spike in raw scoring volume. His defensive presence (+0.9) was unusually quiet, failing to offset the damage done by empty offensive possessions. The inability to finish at the rim ultimately derailed his extended minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 29.1m -15.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 19.7m
5
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.2

Passing vision created solid offensive flow, but passive shot selection limited his ability to punish drop coverages. A slightly negative total impact (-2.2) reflects a stint where he deferred too often to heavily guarded teammates. He provided adequate positional defense, yet lacked the aggression needed to tilt the scoreboard in his favor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 19.7m -10.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Generated excellent secondary value through a +5.2 hustle score, frequently keeping loose balls alive. However, his overall impact hovered just below zero (-1.0) due to settling for low-quality perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint. The defensive metrics were solid, but the empty offensive possessions stalled out several half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 30.1m -16.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.1

Exploded out of nowhere with a +13.1 total impact driven by relentless off-ball movement and decisive attacking. His +5.0 hustle rating perfectly mirrored his energy on the glass and in transition lanes. This massive deviation from his usual production fundamentally changed the game's momentum during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 26.0m -14.1
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Drake Powell 18.9m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Sound perimeter containment drove a respectable +3.8 defensive rating during his rotation minutes. Unfortunately, his offensive limitations continue to bleed value, as hesitant decision-making bogged down the spacing. The resulting -2.3 total impact highlights a one-way performance where his defensive stops couldn't mask the offensive drag.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 18.9m -10.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Struggled to make his presence felt in the dirty work areas, evidenced by a nearly non-existent +0.2 hustle metric. His limited minutes were marred by sluggish defensive rotations that allowed easy interior positioning for opponents. Consequently, a -2.4 total impact reflects a backup big who failed to anchor the second unit effectively.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 15.6m -8.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Maximized a brief cameo by immediately capitalizing on a defensive breakdown for a quick perimeter strike. His +1.8 total impact in just over two minutes shows extreme efficiency in garbage time. There simply wasn't enough runway to generate any measurable hustle or defensive data.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Fired away without hesitation during a fleeting appearance, resulting in a neutral 0.0 total impact. The shot selection was aggressive but forced, yielding minimal value to the offensive structure. He operated strictly as a volume spacer in the dying moments of the contest.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 2.3m -1.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

A disastrous two-minute stint saw him bleed -3.7 in total impact through rushed attempts and blown coverages. Opponents immediately targeted him in space, exploiting his slow lateral slides for quick scores. It was a brief but highly damaging stretch that completely derailed the end-of-bench unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0