GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 39.8m
21
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.0

Scoring efficiency carried his profile, as he expertly navigated screens to find his spots from beyond the arc. However, his overall impact was somewhat muted by defensive lapses at the point of attack that allowed straight-line drives to the rim.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 39.8m -22.6
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
S CJ McCollum 34.2m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.0

Bogged down the offense with isolation-heavy possessions that frequently ended in contested mid-range clanks. The lack of rim pressure allowed the opposing defense to stay home on shooters, stifling the team's overall ball movement and tanking his net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 34.2m -19.3
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyshawn George 33.3m
14
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.2

A complete inability to connect from the perimeter heavily damaged his impact, despite making solid playmaking reads. He consistently generated advantages off the dribble but negated them by settling for low-percentage outside shots against tight coverage.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 33.3m -18.9
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Overcame a high volume of missed three-pointers by dominating the interior and securing crucial second-chance opportunities. His defensive activity in drop coverage successfully funneled guards into tough mid-range pull-ups, salvaging a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 27.2m -15.5
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Failed to replicate his recent efficient stretch by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock, which led to long rebounds. His lack of off-ball movement allowed the defense to sag into the paint and disrupt the primary actions, dragging his score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 20.7m -11.9
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Johnson 25.4m
19
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.6

Broke out of a recent shooting slump by decisively attacking closeouts and finishing through contact at the rim. His aggressive on-ball defense disrupted the opponent's timing and sparked multiple transition scoring opportunities that fueled his high impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 25.4m -14.4
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Generated massive value entirely through grit, using elite defensive anticipation to blow up passing lanes and secure loose balls. Despite coming up empty as a scorer, his relentless effort on 50/50 balls and weak-side rim rotations heavily tilted the possession battle in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +7.8
Defense +8.8
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 21.9m -12.4
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 16.8m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Poor spacing hampered his ability to operate, frequently leading to drives into crowded paint areas and subsequent turnovers. A stark drop-off from his recent scoring tear was primarily driven by questionable shot selection against switching defensive schemes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 16.8m -9.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Found some success attacking the basket but gave the value right back through poor screen navigation on the defensive end. A tendency to over-help off strong-side shooters created defensive breakdowns that mitigated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -57.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 16.0m -9.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A brief, unproductive stint characterized by rushing shots around the basket against taller defenders. His inability to establish deep post position resulted in empty possessions that quickly sent him back to the bench with a negative score.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 4.6m -2.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 33.0m
27
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.8

Exploded offensively by aggressively attacking closeouts and taking highly efficient shots from deep. He kept the defense constantly rotating with his downhill pressure, creating a cascading positive effect on the team's spacing that drove his stellar overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 33.0m -18.8
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 32.0m
18
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+2.9

Elite defensive positioning and active hands generated crucial stops, keeping his overall impact positive despite a brutal shooting night. His playmaking vision shone through in the pick-and-roll, effectively masking the damage from his numerous missed attempts around the basket.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/13 (69.2%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.3
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 32.0m -18.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 30.7m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

A massive negative rating was driven by settling for low-percentage perimeter looks against set defenses. His inability to create separation off the dribble led to empty possessions that directly fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 30.7m -17.4
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Luke Kornet 27.9m
20
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+19.4

Dominated the interior by establishing deep post position and converting high-quality looks at the rim. His massive positive impact was heavily bolstered by relentless offensive rebounding and altering shots in the paint, completely neutralizing the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +26.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +35.2
Avg player in 27.9m -15.8
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 25.9m
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Impact dipped into the negative due to a pattern of forcing contested mid-range jumpers late in the shot clock. Despite a noticeable uptick in offensive aggression compared to recent outings, defensive miscommunications on the perimeter and ill-timed fouls negated that production.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 25.9m -14.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.6

Capitalized on defensive mismatches by bullying smaller wings in the paint for highly efficient scoring opportunities. His timely cuts to the basket and opportunistic rebounding provided a steady stabilizing force that kept his impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 23.8m -13.5
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Anchored the defense with elite rim protection, deterring countless drives and forcing opponents into tough floaters. While his overall usage dropped significantly from his recent tear, his gravitational pull on offense still created wide-open looks for teammates to sustain a positive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 21.5m -12.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

Struggled to find any rhythm from beyond the arc, clanking several wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities that stalled offensive momentum. His negative impact was compounded by slow defensive rotations that surrendered easy corner looks to his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 18.1m -10.3
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 17.7m
1
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.4

A disastrous offensive outing where missed shots and forced drives completely disrupted the team's half-court flow. Driving heavily contested into traffic resulted in wasted possessions and a cratered net impact, marking a stark departure from his recent efficient stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 5.6%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense -7.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total -7.4
Avg player in 17.7m -10.0
Impact -17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Provided a brief but highly effective spark off the bench by operating as a high-post hub against the zone defense. Quick decision-making and smart positional screening maximized his limited minutes on the floor to yield a positive return.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +38.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 9.4m -5.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0