GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 30.6m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Volume scoring masked a detrimental impact driven by defensive bleeding and likely live-ball turnovers. He dominated the ball offensively but gave it right back by getting blown by on the perimeter. A pattern of over-helping on defense left shooters wide open, sinking his net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 30.6m -19.0
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Kyshawn George 28.4m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Despite excellent shooting and high hustle marks, his overall impact slipped into the red, likely due to unseen mistakes like poor spacing or turnovers. He hit shots when called upon but struggled to navigate off-ball defensive switches. A stretch of miscommunications in transition defense ultimately undermined his efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -51.7
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 28.4m -17.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Impact cratered due to abysmal finishing around the rim, breaking his recent streak of high efficiency. He forced heavily contested hooks in traffic, wasting valuable post touches. Being repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll drop coverage further compounded his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.6%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 25.6m -15.8
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 25.2m
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

A strong bounce-back in scoring efficiency was completely undone by defensive lapses and a lack of hustle. He bled points on the other end, consistently dying on screens and allowing straight-line drives. A pattern of slow transition defense negated the value of his offensive resurgence.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 25.2m -15.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jamir Watkins 18.4m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Elite hustle metrics salvaged a game where his offensive involvement plummeted compared to recent outings. He generated value entirely through off-ball activity, setting hard screens and keeping possessions alive. A sequence of back-to-back offensive rebounds defined his gritty, low-usage performance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.2%
Net Rtg -76.9
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 18.4m -11.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.8

A disastrous offensive showing and minimal defensive resistance resulted in a massive negative impact. He settled for long, contested jumpers early in the clock, killing the team's offensive flow. Getting physically overwhelmed by opposing guards during a brutal second-quarter stretch defined his struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 27.6m -17.2
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 26.6m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.3

A steep drop in offensive production combined with poor defensive execution led to a plummeting net rating. He was consistently late on closeouts, allowing uncontested perimeter looks. Struggling to establish rhythm against physical ball pressure completely neutralized his usual scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -75.5
+/- -39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 26.6m -16.5
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Whitmore 18.1m
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Horrific shot selection single-handedly tanked his impact despite respectable defensive metrics. He drove into crowded paints with tunnel vision, resulting in wild misses that fueled opponent fast breaks. A pattern of ignoring open teammates on the perimeter highlighted his detrimental offensive approach.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.2%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -60.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 18.1m -11.2
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

High-level hustle and stout defensive positioning anchored his highly effective minutes. He maintained his streak of efficient shooting by strictly taking what the defense gave him. A pattern of crashing the glass and securing 50/50 balls defined his winning impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 15.2m -9.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Efficient interior finishing and decisive offensive actions drove a solid positive impact in limited action. He exploited mismatches in the post, punishing switches with quick moves. A brief but highly effective stint as the roll man kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -50.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 11.4m -7.0
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

A complete lack of hustle and zero offensive conversions dragged his brief stint into the negative. He floated on the perimeter without applying pressure to the defense. Failing to fight through off-ball screens allowed his matchup to roam freely, compounding his offensive zeroes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -64.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 8.2m -5.0
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
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A drastic reduction in volume and zero hustle stats resulted in a negative impact during his short time on the floor. He failed to make his presence felt on the interior, a sharp contrast to his recent highly efficient play. Getting caught in no-man's-land on pick-and-roll defense highlighted a forgettable performance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 4.7m -2.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
BOS Boston Celtics
20
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.6

High offensive volume was heavily offset by inefficient chucking, suppressing his overall impact. While he created looks, a pattern of forcing contested floaters early in the shot clock gave possessions away. His defensive effort kept him in the green, but the erratic shot selection capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 32.1m -20.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Walsh 29.7m
22
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.5

Flawless shooting efficiency drove a massive box score impact, far exceeding his recent averages. His defensive activity and pristine shot selection defined his performance, punishing defensive rotations. A dominant third-quarter stretch of finishing at the rim cemented his immense positive value.

Shooting
FG 8/8 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 103.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 29.7m -18.4
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Derrick White 28.8m
30
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+13.3

A massive scoring surge shattered his recent slump, driven by aggressive perimeter shot-making and excellent distribution. His relentless hustle generating extra possessions was just as vital as his offensive volume. Dictating the tempo against the opposing backcourt allowed him to control the game's flow completely.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 28.8m -17.9
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 21.1m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.1

Elite rim protection and defensive positioning anchored a highly impactful stint on the floor. He maintained a streak of hyper-efficient finishing by feasting on drop coverage in the pick-and-roll. Controlling the paint during a crucial second-quarter run highlighted his two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +63.8
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +8.6
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 21.1m -13.0
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 20.5m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Impact cratered due to a sharp drop in scoring efficiency compared to his recent hot streak, struggling to find clean looks. His inability to shake free from ball denial limited his offensive gravity. A pattern of settling for contested jumpers rather than moving the ball dragged down his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 20.5m -12.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Despite solid defensive metrics, his overall impact flatlined due to poor finishing inside the arc. A reliance on perimeter isolation plays bogged down the offensive rhythm. Struggling to break down his primary matchup off the dribble ultimately neutralized his value.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +66.0
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 25.4m -15.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.7

Stellar defensive rotations and relentless loose-ball recoveries drove his value far beyond his modest scoring. He sacrificed his body on screens and consistently made the extra rotation to cover blown assignments. This gritty, blue-collar effort during the second unit's minutes anchored the team's defense.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg +87.2
+/- +42
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 25.0m -15.5
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 22.0m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Defensive versatility and high-energy hustle plays formed the foundation of his positive impact. He consistently disrupted passing lanes, turning deflections into transition opportunities. A pattern of disciplined closeouts on the perimeter defined his reliable two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 22.0m -13.6
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.8

An unexpected scoring explosion was fueled by decisive, high-percentage attacks on the basket. He capitalized on broken defensive assignments, finding soft spots in the zone during a key second-half stretch. Efficient capitalization on limited touches drove a highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 17.7m -11.0
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luka Garza 8.2m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Perfect execution in limited minutes kept his efficiency streak alive and provided a quick, positive jolt. He leveraged his size effectively in the post, sealing his man early to create easy entry passes. A brief but physical stint battling on the interior maximized his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.8%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +64.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 8.2m -5.1
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Empty offensive production dragged his impact into the negative despite solid defensive metrics. A pattern of rushed perimeter attempts short-circuited offensive possessions during his brief stint. His ability to stay in front of his man defensively barely mitigated the offensive zeroes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +90.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 4.7m -3.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

A completely invisible stint on both ends of the floor resulted in a steep negative impact. He failed to register any hustle stats and was routinely out of position on defensive rotations. Getting sealed off repeatedly in the paint during a late-game stretch underscored his struggles.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +90.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 4.7m -3.0
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1