GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 37.0m
14
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.0

Elite shooting splits and excellent offensive initiation (+15.2 Box) were completely overshadowed by costly live-ball mistakes that fueled opponent transition runs. He orchestrated the half-court well, but bleeding points the other way ultimately pushed his net influence into the red (-2.0 Total).

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.6%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 37.0m -22.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyshawn George 36.2m
15
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.6

Strong individual defensive metrics (+7.7 Def) and active hands (+7.0 Hustle) were curiously undermined by poor lineup synergy, resulting in a slightly negative overall grade. While his spot-up mechanics looked fluid, untimely rotational breakdowns while he was on the floor dragged down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +7.0
Defense +7.7
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 36.2m -21.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S CJ McCollum 35.9m
28
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.9

A classic case of empty-calorie scoring where a blistering perimeter display masked catastrophic defensive bleeding (-10.9 Total). Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, essentially scoring at will and negating every bit of his offensive firepower.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 35.9m -21.7
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.1

Continuing a streak of highly disciplined shot selection, he punished defensive closeouts with remarkable efficiency (+15.9 Box). His relentless crashing of the glass and timely weak-side help (+6.7 Def) cemented his status as the primary stabilizing force for the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 32.2m -19.5
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Struggled to establish deep post position, severely limiting his usual interior scoring gravity. Despite converting the few looks he received, his inability to anchor the paint defensively allowed opponents to dictate the tempo during his shifts (-3.3 Total).

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 19.2m -11.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

Abandoning a cold perimeter stroke, he wisely recalibrated his attack to punish mismatches in the mid-post (+14.3 Box). Solid positional rim protection (+4.5 Def) ensured his extended minutes yielded a net positive result.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 27.3m -16.5
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 19.0m
15
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Tunnel vision on offense led to forced perimeter attempts and stalled ball movement. Without any supplementary playmaking or defensive disruption to fall back on (+0.2 Hustle), his scoring-only approach actively hurt the team's overall flow (-5.8 Total).

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 19.0m -11.5
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Passive offensive positioning rendered him a virtual non-factor on that end of the floor. While he chipped in with a few timely closeouts (+1.7 Hustle), his inability to command defensive attention bogged down the spacing and led to a harsh negative swing (-7.5 Total).

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 15.8m -9.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

A disastrous rotational stint defined by complete offensive invisibility and an inability to stay in front of straight-line drives. His failure to generate any rim pressure or perimeter gravity allowed the defense to trap elsewhere, cratering the lineup's effectiveness (-12.1 Total).

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 14.5m -8.8
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Logged a mere 90 seconds of floor time, barely enough to break a sweat before returning to the bench. The abbreviated stint featured no measurable events, serving strictly as a brief rotational bridge.

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 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 1.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Rushed a heavily contested look during a fleeting end-of-quarter appearance, instantly putting his team in transition defense. The lack of situational awareness in a micro-stint drove a quick negative impact (-1.7 Total).

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 39.1m
30
pts
12
reb
12
ast
Impact
+11.4

A dominant two-way showcase where his aggressive rim-pressure generated massive offensive value (+23.9 Box). His ability to seamlessly switch across multiple assignments anchored the defensive unit (+8.5 Def), proving he can scale up his usage without sacrificing efficiency.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.5
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 39.1m -23.7
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.0m
21
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.0

Relentless interior activity drove a team-high impact score (+12.0), fueled by exceptional rim protection and second-chance generation (+6.9 Hustle). Even with a completely empty perimeter shooting night, his physical dominance in the paint overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +6.9
Defense +8.0
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 36.0m -21.8
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
S Dyson Daniels 35.9m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.0

Severe offensive inefficiency completely tanked his overall rating (-12.0) as he settled for heavily contested jumpers. While he remained engaged on the margins with solid deflections and loose ball recoveries (+3.4 Hustle), the sheer volume of wasted possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 35.9m -21.7
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.4

Off-the-charts energy metrics (+11.1 Hustle) salvaged a night where his perimeter jumper was largely misfiring. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and fought through screens, ensuring his defensive intensity (+6.0 Def) offset the dip in his usual scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +11.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 32.0m -19.5
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Despite a highly efficient scoring profile inside the arc, his overall influence remained surprisingly neutral (+0.9). Defensive rotations and a few key hustle plays (+2.4 Def) kept him in the positive, but a lack of perimeter aggression limited his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 18.8m -11.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Exceptional off-ball defensive awareness (+9.9 Def) highlighted a highly effective glue-guy performance. By capitalizing on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners, he provided crucial spacing that maximized his overall floor impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +9.9
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 30.7m -18.5
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Luke Kennard 22.8m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Lethal floor-spacing punished defensive drop coverages and significantly amplified the half-court offense (+13.5 Box). Surprisingly, he also held up exceptionally well at the point of attack (+7.5 Def), preventing opponents from hunting him in isolation.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 107.1%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +7.5
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 22.8m -13.8
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 12.3m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Completely flipped the momentum of the second unit with a hyper-efficient scoring burst (+15.8 Box). His decisive cuts and confident shot preparation masked a neutral defensive showing, validating the coach's decision to extend his run.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +63.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 12.3m -7.5
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Made the most of a brief rotation cameo by operating strictly within his physical limitations. Quick decisive rolls to the basket and attentive weak-side rotations (+1.2 Def) resulted in a perfectly clean, positive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 8.6m -5.3
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

A disjointed garbage-time appearance where forced offensive actions quickly derailed his rhythm. Failed to register any meaningful defensive resistance, leading to a swift negative swing (-3.5 Total) in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 3.8m -2.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0