GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 32.5m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.8

Hemorrhaged value through a toxic combination of forced perimeter jumpers and momentum-killing turnovers. He repeatedly tried to shoot his way out of a slump, stalling the offensive engine and allowing the opposition to feast in transition. Despite decent effort on the other end, his offensive friction was simply too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 32.5m -18.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bilal Coulibaly 28.7m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Swallowed up opposing wings with exceptional length and lateral quickness, driving a massive +10.1 defensive rating. He compensated for a clunky shooting night by crashing the glass relentlessly and generating second-chance opportunities. His transition defense alone erased several guaranteed buckets, cementing a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +10.1
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 28.7m -16.6
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 26.2m
20
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+23.5

Put together a masterclass in rim deterrence, anchoring the paint with a staggering +18.4 defensive impact that completely shut off the restricted area. Breaking out of a severe slump, he aggressively hunted his shot and overwhelmed smaller defenders in the post. His sheer size and activity level dictated the entire flow of the game from tip to buzzer.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +18.4
Raw total +38.8
Avg player in 26.2m -15.3
Impact +23.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 6
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 25.5m
14
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

A sharp uptick in offensive assertiveness was entirely negated by poor ball security and mistimed rotations. He flashed brilliant shot-making ability, but gave the value right back by biting on pump fakes and committing careless fouls. The result was a loud, high-variance performance that ultimately broke even on the margins.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 25.5m -14.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 22.6m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Scraped out a neutral overall impact by leaning heavily on his veteran defensive positioning to mask a sluggish offensive outing. The damage from his missed jumpers was carefully offset by his ability to blow up dribble hand-offs and funnel drivers toward help. He ultimately managed the game well enough to survive his own shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 22.6m -13.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-12.9

Disastrous decision-making as a primary ball-handler completely cratered his net impact. He was relentlessly blitzed in the pick-and-roll, resulting in a barrage of live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition attack. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't patch the massive holes he blew in the team's offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 26.9m -15.5
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 8
10
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Cooled off considerably from his recent hot streak, struggling to finish through contact around the rim and missing several high-value looks. He salvaged his night by attacking the glass and providing solid weak-side help (+3.7 Def). However, the missed bunnies and occasional spacing issues ultimately kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 25.4m -14.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.6

Punished mismatches in the paint with ruthless efficiency, converting nearly all of his interior touches without forcing the issue. He established deep post position early and often, forcing the defense into uncomfortable rotation patterns. His decisive finishing and vertical spacing provided a massive stabilizing force for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 21.7m -12.6
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 18.9m
0
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.5

An absolute offensive zero who failed to generate any rim pressure or perimeter gravity, completely stalling out the half-court offense. He looked hesitant against physical coverage, passing up open looks only to force bad ones late in the shot clock. His inability to bend the defense allowed opponents to comfortably load up on primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 18.9m -10.9
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Bled value during a short stint due to poor defensive awareness and chronically slow closeouts. While he hit a couple of jumpers to keep the scoreboard ticking, he was repeatedly targeted on switches. The defensive bleeding ultimately outweighed his modest offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 11.1m -6.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Made a fleeting appearance at the end of a quarter that yielded virtually no measurable impact. He simply occupied space on the floor for a single possession before returning to the bench.

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 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 0.4m -0.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Santi Aldama 35.5m
14
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Defensive versatility completely salvaged an otherwise erratic shooting night where his perimeter touch abandoned him. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions and secured critical contested rebounds, generating a massive +14.3 defensive impact. Those extra possessions and high-motor rotations easily erased the damage from his clunky shot selection.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +14.3
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 35.5m -20.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
31
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.8

Elite rim protection and active help-side rotations (+7.2 Def) anchored a dominant two-way showing that dictated the terms of engagement all night. He absorbed massive offensive usage, and while the volume of missed jumpers slightly capped his ceiling, his ability to command double-teams created immense gravity.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 35.0m -20.2
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 3
S Jaylen Wells 27.5m
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

A noticeable uptick in scoring aggression backfired as he forced several contested looks in the half-court, bleeding value on empty possessions. Strong closeouts and loose-ball recoveries (+4.3 hustle) kept his defensive floor intact. However, the sheer volume of errant jumpers ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 27.5m -15.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja Morant 27.5m
21
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.6

High-leverage turnovers and defensive lapses in transition completely wiped out a highly efficient shooting performance. He repeatedly tried to thread the needle in pick-and-roll traffic, leading to live-ball giveaways that fueled opponent fast breaks. The highlight-reel plays ultimately masked a fundamentally leaky floor game.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 27.5m -15.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cedric Coward 22.7m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Sloppy ball security and poorly timed fouls handed the opposition free momentum, tanking his overall value. A dip in his usual offensive rhythm led to forced drives into heavy traffic rather than letting the game come to him. His inability to string together clean possessions ultimately short-circuited several promising runs.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -33.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 22.7m -13.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Spencer 26.7m
8
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.4

A brutal perimeter shooting slump torpedoed his offensive value, as he repeatedly bricked wide-open catch-and-shoot looks. While he tried to compensate with active hands in the passing lanes (+3.2 Def), the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. Opponents eventually sagged off him entirely, completely bogging down the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 26.7m -15.4
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Completely changed the geometry of the court with relentless rim-running and elite shot-alteration. His +9.6 defensive impact stemmed from erasing driving lanes and dominating the physical battles in the paint. A sudden burst of offensive confidence perfectly complemented his high-motor dirty work, making him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +8.4
Defense +9.6
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 25.5m -14.7
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
GG Jackson 21.1m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Pivoted seamlessly into a defensive stopper role when his usual scoring punch vanished. He locked down the perimeter with suffocating on-ball pressure and generated crucial deflections (+4.0 hustle) to disrupt the opponent's rhythm. Finding ways to impact winning without dominating the ball showcased impressive maturity and versatility.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 21.1m -12.2
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence by executing his role flawlessly during a short rotation stint. Textbook screen navigation and timely closeouts kept the defensive shell intact without gambling. He didn't force the issue offensively, letting the flow of the game dictate his touches to yield a modest positive return.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 10.7m -6.2
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Barely moved the needle during a brief, low-usage cameo that snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient play. He stayed within the scheme defensively but struggled to find any offensive rhythm in limited action. The short leash ultimately prevented him from establishing any real footprint on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 7.8m -4.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0