GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 31.1m
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Scoring volume completely masked a disastrous defensive showing where he was repeatedly targeted and exploited in pick-and-roll coverage. The lack of secondary effort and a slew of careless turnovers bled points, erasing any value his offense provided.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +11.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 31.1m -18.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 29.2m
11
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.7

Wreaked absolute havoc defensively, utilizing his length to blow up passing lanes and generate crucial transition opportunities. Even with a broken jumper, his relentless motor and a pattern of elite weak-side rim protection drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +9.6
Defense +12.4
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 29.2m -17.4
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
S Alex Sarr 28.6m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.9

Broke out of a recent slump by dominating the painted area and showcasing fluid rim-running capabilities. His vertical spacing warped the opposing defense, while his active hands in drop coverage completely neutralized interior drives.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +7.4
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 28.6m -16.9
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 28.0m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Delivered a highly efficient scoring punch, but his net impact was muted by a tendency to get lost in off-ball defensive assignments. While the shot-making was crisp, his inability to consistently secure long rebounds during critical stretches limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.2
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 28.0m -16.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Khris Middleton 22.8m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Despite finding some offensive efficiency, his overall impact was dragged down by sluggish defensive transitions and poor ball security. The veteran struggled to keep pace with the game's tempo, giving back his scoring value through a pattern of costly turnovers in the second half.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 22.8m -13.5
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.5

Suffered a catastrophic drop in impact due to reckless decision-making and a barrage of live-ball turnovers. His inability to orchestrate the half-court offense without coughing up possession fueled opponent fast breaks and cratered the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 26.3m -15.5
Impact -14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
20
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.0

Continued a scorching stretch of efficiency by hunting high-percentage looks and cutting decisively off the ball. His relentless rim pressure and a relentless pattern of back-door cuts perfectly punished defensive over-rotations.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 24.6m -14.6
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Will Riley 18.8m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.5

A sharp decline from his recent scoring tears, characterized by hesitant drives and a failure to read secondary defensive help. The resulting offensive stagnation and a pattern of sloppy ball-handling dragged his net impact firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 18.8m -11.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
12
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.2

Provided a flawless interior spark, converting every touch around the basket while setting bruising screens to free up perimeter shooters. His disciplined positioning and mistake-free execution anchored a highly productive rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +46.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 16.9m -9.9
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 13.7m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Derailed offensive possessions by forcing wild, contested attempts early in the shot clock. While he showed flashes of defensive engagement, his erratic shot selection consistently bailed out the opposing defense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 13.7m -8.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Danny Wolf 35.1m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Despite finding an offensive rhythm above his recent averages, his overall impact plunged into the red due to severe ball security issues. The positive defensive metrics couldn't salvage a performance marred by a pattern of costly live-ball turnovers that fueled transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 35.1m -20.8
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Day'Ron Sharpe 29.9m
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Dominated the interior with excellent positional awareness, anchoring the defensive glass and generating crucial second-chance opportunities. His physical screen-setting and disciplined rim protection created a massive positive swing during a dominant stretch anchoring the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +6.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 29.9m -17.6
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 27.9m
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Struggled to find any offensive rhythm, forcing contested looks that frequently stalled the half-court offense. Although his defensive rotations were crisp and disruptive, a brutal string of offensive fouls and live-ball turnovers dragged his net impact heavily into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +7.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 27.9m -16.5
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 27.8m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

Shot selection cratered his overall value as he repeatedly forced heavily contested looks from the perimeter instead of playing within the flow. While his activity level remained high on the defensive end, a disastrous stretch of wasted half-court possessions derailed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 27.8m -16.5
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Terance Mann 23.6m
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

A sudden scoring surge masked significant defensive lapses and foul trouble that consistently compromised the perimeter shell. He struggled to stay in front of his primary matchups in isolation, bleeding points on the other end and erasing the value of his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.4
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 23.6m -13.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Nolan Traore 25.7m
12
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.1

Controlled the tempo with methodical playmaking in the half-court, consistently finding the open man without forcing unnecessary risks. His disciplined point-of-attack defense and a highly efficient shot profile established a reliable baseline of positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 25.7m -15.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

Operated as a premier two-way connector, spacing the floor effectively while completely locking down his assignments on the perimeter. His combination of timely closeouts and decisive shot-making provided a stabilizing presence during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.3
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 23.9m -14.2
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
Drake Powell 21.7m
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

Capitalized on every offensive touch with elite shot selection, punishing defensive rotations with decisive baseline cuts. His hyper-efficient scoring burst perfectly complemented a sturdy defensive effort, making him a highly effective plug-and-play asset.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.6%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 21.7m -12.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 16.4m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Fell out of sync offensively, missing routine reads and settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers. He managed to salvage some value through sheer effort on the defensive end, but a sustained stretch of offensive stagnation ultimately outweighed his hustle.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 16.4m -9.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

A chaotic first-half stint was defined by rushed offensive decisions and an inability to blend into the scheme. Forcing multiple low-percentage looks in limited action quickly tanked his overall value before the coaching staff pulled the plug.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -72.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -3.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 5.0m -3.0
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Barely registered during a fleeting rotation stint, failing to make any tangible mark on either end of the floor. The slight negative impact stems from missed weak-side rotations during his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0