GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 35.6m
28
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.3

Sliced through the defense with an array of floaters and pull-up jumpers to carry the scoring load. His veteran savvy in the pick-and-roll consistently forced favorable switches. A disciplined approach to ball security ensured his offensive production translated directly to a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 35.6m -21.1
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bilal Coulibaly 32.6m
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Put on an absolute defensive clinic (+8.8 Def) by blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs and fighting through screens. Unfortunately, his offensive passivity allowed the defense to pack the paint against his teammates. The resulting offensive stagnation outweighed his elite perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 32.6m -19.3
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 31.4m
15
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.0

Found his rhythm in the mid-range to anchor the half-court offense. The negative net rating was primarily driven by sluggish transition defense and late closeouts on corner shooters. While his shot-making was a bright spot, the team bled points during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 31.4m -18.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyshawn George 30.9m
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.3

Smothering on-ball defense (+4.9 Def) disrupted the opponent's primary ball-handlers throughout the night. Sadly, a brutal string of forced shots and offensive fouls completely tanked his overall value. His inability to convert in the paint allowed the defense to ignore him in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 30.9m -18.2
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
22
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

Utterly dominated the interior with relentless rim-running and a massive hustle rating (+7.7). He consistently beat his man down the floor to generate easy transition buckets. This high-energy performance overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt and drove a stellar +20.6 net impact.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +28.1
Hustle +7.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +37.9
Avg player in 29.2m -17.3
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.3

Struggled to find passing lanes against aggressive traps, leading to stalled offensive sets. A sharp decline in scoring aggression made him a non-threat off the bounce. Opposing guards relentlessly attacked his positioning, driving a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 21.9m -12.9
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.9

Stretched the floor beautifully, pulling the opposing center out of the paint to open up driving lanes. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications with timely cuts to the basket. A disciplined approach to verticality at the rim (+2.8 Def) ensured his minutes were highly profitable.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 19.7m -11.7
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Whitmore 19.4m
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Injected immediate life into the offense with explosive straight-line drives to the rim. His willingness to attack closeouts collapsed the defense and created secondary scoring chances. Solid weakside defensive rotations (+3.2 Def) rounded out a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 19.4m -11.4
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient finishing by feasting on baseline cuts and putbacks. His relentless motor (+2.9 Hustle) generated extra possessions that broke the opponent's spirit in the third quarter. Active hands on defense (+4.4 Def) perfectly complemented his offensive opportunism.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 19.3m -11.3
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
26
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Dominant interior finishing drove a high box score metric, but his overall impact dipped into the negative. Stagnant half-court spacing and a few costly live-ball turnovers allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game. He struggled to contain his primary matchup on the perimeter, minimizing his usual defensive deterrence.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/11 (54.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 31.6m -18.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
30
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.1

Masterful shot creation against drop coverage fueled a massive offensive rating spike. He paired his scoring efficiency with aggressive point-of-attack defense (+7.7 Def) that disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. This two-way clinic directly translated to a dominant +19.1 net impact.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.7
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 31.0m -18.3
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S AJ Green 30.9m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

Perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, reflected in a strong offensive box score metric. A stellar hustle rating (+5.8) showcased his willingness to dive for loose balls and fight through screens. However, his overall impact was muted by getting targeted in isolation on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 30.9m -18.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 29.6m
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.2

Active hands in the passing lanes generated a solid defensive rating, but his offensive execution faltered. Poor shot selection early in the shot clock and a failure to read weakside help led to empty possessions. The resulting negative swing masked his otherwise solid perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 29.6m -17.5
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Myles Turner 26.1m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Excellent rim protection (+5.0 Def) altered multiple shots in the paint and anchored the drop coverage. Unfortunately, a barrage of missed perimeter jumpers derailed offensive possessions. His inability to punish switches on the block ultimately dragged down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 26.1m -15.4
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Timely perimeter shot-making kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. However, his impact plummeted due to late defensive rotations and a lack of secondary playmaking. Opponents repeatedly exploited his closeouts, negating the value of his floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 30.5m -18.0
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 19.9m
3
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.4

A significant drop in scoring aggression left the offense lacking a crucial release valve. He settled for heavily contested looks rather than attacking the paint, stalling momentum. Defensive miscommunications in transition further compounded a highly negative stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 19.9m -11.7
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jericho Sims 18.1m
5
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Provided reliable vertical spacing and finished cleanly around the rim when set up by guards. The negative overall impact stemmed from poor defensive positioning (-0.3 Def), as he repeatedly bit on pump fakes. Failing to secure contested defensive rebounds also gave the opposition extra bites at the apple.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 18.1m -10.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 17.4m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Punished smaller defenders in the post to generate reliable offense during the second quarter. His activity on the offensive glass created valuable second-chance opportunities that kept the chains moving. Despite some struggles in pick-and-roll coverage, his brute-force scoring secured a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 17.4m -10.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A brief, disjointed stint was marred by a lack of offensive rhythm. He failed to organize the second unit, resulting in a pair of broken plays. Defensive breakdowns at the point of attack quickly forced him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 4.9m -2.8
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0