GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 36.5m
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

A defensive masterclass fueled his positive impact, as he completely smothered opposing wings and blew up multiple screening actions. His relentless motor translated into elite hustle metrics, highlighted by several crucial deflections that sparked fast breaks. While his perimeter shooting was streaky, his physical point-of-attack defense more than compensated.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +6.5
Defense +14.2
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 36.5m -21.0
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cooper Flagg 35.7m
19
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

Shifted his focus from high-volume scoring to elite weak-side rim protection, anchoring the defense with perfectly timed rotations. Even with his offensive production dipping below his recent torrid pace, his ability to erase mistakes at the basket drove a massive positive rating. He completely neutralized Houston's interior attack during a pivotal third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.8
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 35.7m -20.6
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Anthony Davis 30.3m
29
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.1

Utterly dominated the painted area with overwhelming efficiency, converting nearly every interior touch into high-value points. His sheer physical advantage in the post dictated the entire flow of the game, forcing Houston to collapse their defense to no avail. Combined with suffocating rim protection, this was a flawless two-way clinic that generated a massive net rating.

Shooting
FG 14/19 (73.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +41.6
Avg player in 30.3m -17.5
Impact +24.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Naji Marshall 28.2m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Maximized his offensive touches through impeccable shot selection, punishing defensive rotations with decisive, efficient drives. He seamlessly filled the gaps as a secondary creator, keeping the ball moving when the primary actions stalled. A few missed rotations in transition slightly capped his overall rating, but his offensive economy was vital.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 28.2m -16.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 23.2m
11
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.0

Broke out of a severe offensive slump by aggressively attacking closeouts, resulting in highly efficient scoring bursts. Despite this offensive resurgence, his overall impact was completely neutralized by poor screen navigation on the defensive end. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, erasing the value of his improved shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 23.2m -13.3
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.2

Provided a lethal scoring punch off the bench by consistently beating his primary defender off the dribble. His ability to collapse the defense and finish through contact drove a stellar positive impact. He completely changed the game's momentum during a late third-quarter blitz, pairing his offensive fireworks with aggressive on-ball defense.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 23.1m -13.3
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Christie 22.7m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

Disappeared from the offensive flow entirely, exhibiting a startling lack of aggression that bogged down the half-court spacing. His hesitance to shoot open catch-and-shoot looks allowed defenders to freely pack the paint. This passive approach, combined with several costly off-ball fouls, severely dragged down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.4%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 22.7m -13.0
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Struggled to anchor the second-unit defense, frequently getting caught out of position on pick-and-roll dives. While he set solid screens and rolled with energy, his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds gave Houston too many second-chance opportunities. The resulting defensive bleed pushed his overall rating firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 17.7m -10.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Stagnated the offensive rhythm with overdribbling and ill-advised, contested pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock. His poor shot selection fed directly into opponent transition opportunities, heavily penalizing his net rating. He was quickly subbed out after a sequence of careless reads derailed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 12.9m -7.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Forced the issue during a chaotic stint, completely abandoning the flow of the offense to hunt his own shot. His sudden inability to convert on isolation drives was a jarring departure from his recent scoring tear. These empty, forced possessions quickly tanked his impact score and earned him an early trip to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 6.7m -3.8
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Logged purely incidental minutes at the end of the rotation. He maintained defensive structure during his brief appearance but didn't have enough time to influence the overall metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Made a fleeting appearance that featured a single missed defensive rotation, resulting in a slightly negative grade. The sample size was too small for him to establish any meaningful rhythm or impact on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite a significant scoring surge compared to his recent slump, empty possessions and poor spacing ultimately zeroed out his impact. He found great success attacking closeouts in the first half, generating high-value looks at the rim. Unfortunately, defensive miscommunications and poorly timed fouls down the stretch erased the value of his offensive breakout.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 40.9m -23.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Amen Thompson 33.1m
7
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-14.1

A stark departure from his recent efficient stretch, as forced drives into heavy traffic resulted in a barrage of missed shots that tanked his overall rating. His defensive rotations and hustle metrics remained elite, frequently disrupting passing lanes. Yet, his inability to finish through contact at the rim allowed the opposition to ignite their transition game.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.4%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 33.1m -19.0
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 6
S Kevin Durant 31.3m
27
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

A steady diet of contested pull-ups paid off, driving a massive box score impact through sheer shot-making efficiency. However, his overall net rating was dragged down by sluggish transition defense and a lack of secondary playmaking. He consistently punished Dallas's drop coverage during the third quarter to keep Houston afloat.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 31.3m -18.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Clint Capela 29.9m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Capitalized on lob opportunities out of the pick-and-roll to easily surpass his abysmal recent scoring averages. However, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to getting sealed out of rebounding position by smaller, quicker opponents. Dallas repeatedly targeted his drop coverage in the fourth quarter, neutralizing his interior presence.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 29.9m -17.2
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 23.3m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Relentless point-of-attack pressure defined his minutes, generating a massive defensive impact score that kept his overall rating firmly in the green. He perfectly executed his role as an energy sparkplug, blowing up dribble handoffs on the perimeter. The offensive volume was minimal, but highly efficient shot selection ensured he didn't waste possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 23.3m -13.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
19
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Caught fire from the perimeter to shatter his recent scoring averages, providing a desperately needed offensive jolt from the second unit. He repeatedly punished defenders for going under screens during a crucial second-quarter run. While his shot-making was stellar, defensive over-helps and a few careless live-ball turnovers kept his net impact modest.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 26.8m -15.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Defensive liabilities heavily outweighed his efficient offensive execution, dragging his net score into the red. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his lack of lateral quickness in isolation, easily bypassing him for paint touches. He did manage to salvage some value by decisively attacking closeouts, but the defensive bleed was too severe.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense -2.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 20.2m -11.8
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Generated tremendous value through pure effort, diving for loose balls and keeping possessions alive with relentless offensive rebounding activity. Despite these high-motor plays, his overall impact hovered just below neutral due to spacing issues when he spotted up on the perimeter. His insistence on forcing contested floaters in the lane stifled the offense's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 17.3m -9.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
JD Davison 8.7m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Failed to leave any positive imprint on the offense, looking hesitant to attack gaps and settling for passive perimeter swings. His inability to pressure the rim allowed the defense to cheat off him and clog the paint. A pair of misread pick-and-roll coverages further compounded his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -81.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 8.7m -5.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 6.4m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Provided a brief but stabilizing veteran presence during his short stint on the floor. He executed defensive switches flawlessly, preventing any easy backdoor cuts. A single, perfectly timed baseline rotation highlighted a low-usage, mistake-free shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 6.4m -3.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Barely saw the floor but still managed to negatively impact the margins by rushing a heavily contested perimeter jumper. He looked out of sync with the offensive flow during his brief cameo. Failed to register any defensive or hustle metrics to offset the wasted possession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0