Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
WAS lead MIN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIN 2P — 3P —
WAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 186 attempts

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards 14/21 +12.0
Randle 9/15 +3.0
Gobert Open 8/10 +2.5
DiVincenzo Hard 2/10 -4.4
Reid 4/8 -1.4
Miller 3/7 -1.7
Clark Open 4/6 +0.9
Juzang Hard 3/5 +1.1
Hyland Hard 2/5 +0.1
McDaniels 3/4 +2.3

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

McCollum Hard 8/12 +7.2
Johnson Hard 3/11 -3.2
Sarr Hard 3/10 -2.4
Carrington Hard 2/9 -2.8
Kispert 4/8 +1.2
Middleton Hard 4/6 +4.0
Coulibaly 3/6 -1.3
Champagnie 3/6 -1.3
Johnson 2/5 +0.1
Vukcevic Open 3/5 -0.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
WAS
55/98 Field Goals 43/88
56.1% Field Goal % 48.9%
11/37 3-Pointers 12/36
29.7% 3-Point % 33.3%
20/27 Free Throws 17/19
74.1% Free Throw % 89.5%
64.2% True Shooting % 59.7%
58 Total Rebounds 39
17 Offensive 9
34 Defensive 26
29 Assists 21
2.07 Assist/TO Ratio 1.11
14 Turnovers 19
14 Steals 9
6 Blocks 5
17 Fouls 20
76 Points in Paint 48
19 Fast Break Pts 21
26 Points off TOs 13
25 Second Chance Pts 15
49 Bench Points 59
37 Largest Lead 3
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Anthony Edwards
35 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 30.2 MIN
+29.35
2
Rudy Gobert
18 PTS · 14 REB · 0 AST · 29.3 MIN
+28.07
3
Jaylen Clark
12 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 27.6 MIN
+21.17
4
Jaden McDaniels
12 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 21.9 MIN
+18.13
5
Julius Randle
22 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 25.3 MIN
+17.69
6
CJ McCollum
20 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 22.2 MIN
+14.59
7
Khris Middleton
10 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 17.9 MIN
+9.4
8
Naz Reid
9 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 20.1 MIN
+9.16
9
Anthony Gill
4 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 5.2 MIN
+7.86
10
Tristan Vukcevic
8 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 13.2 MIN
+7.77
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:15 J. Ingles REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 141–115
Q4 0:17 MISS A. Johnson driving Layup 141–115
Q4 0:26 J. Clark Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 141–115
Q4 0:26 J. Clark Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 140–115
Q4 0:26 A. Johnson shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Clark 2 FT) 139–115
Q4 0:43 M. Branham 26' 3PT running (4 PTS) (A. Johnson 3 AST) 139–115
Q4 0:48 A. Gill STEAL (1 STL) 139–112
Q4 0:48 R. Dillingham lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 139–112
Q4 0:54 A. Johnson 27' 3PT running pullup (5 PTS) 139–112
Q4 0:57 A. Johnson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 139–109
Q4 0:59 MISS J. Juzang 27' pullup 3PT 139–109
Q4 1:15 L. Miller REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 139–109
Q4 1:18 MISS M. Branham Free Throw 2 of 2 139–109
Q4 1:18 M. Branham Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 139–109
Q4 1:18 R. Dillingham shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Branham 2 FT) 139–108

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bilal Coulibaly 27.6m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Extreme offensive passivity allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter, bogging down the team's spacing. Although his active hands generated several deflections (+4.0 Hustle), his reluctance to attack closeouts heavily weighed down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense -2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Tre Johnson 27.0m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Errant perimeter shooting and forced drives into traffic continued a troubling trend of offensive inefficiency. The sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his modest defensive contributions, resulting in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alex Sarr 26.0m
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.0

Settling for low-percentage looks around the basket severely damaged his offensive efficiency and fueled opponent transition opportunities. He fought hard for positioning (+3.2 Hustle), but his inability to finish through contact defined a highly negative performance.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 22.2m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Masterful navigation of high pick-and-rolls allowed him to torch drop coverages with deadly accuracy. His elite shot selection and scoring gravity carried the offense during his minutes, easily offsetting relatively quiet defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.4%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 17.9m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Crisp shot-making from the mid-range and beyond the arc provided a much-needed offensive spark after a recent slump. However, a lack of sustained defensive pressure and minimal rebounding presence kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Despite finding his range and providing a significant scoring punch off the bench, his overall impact cratered due to getting repeatedly targeted in isolation. Opponents consistently hunted him on switches, neutralizing the value of his offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -65.0
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Consistent defensive rotations (+3.6 Def) and smart shot selection kept him fundamentally sound on both ends. However, a lack of aggressive offensive involvement allowed the defense to sag off him, subtly hurting the team's overall spacing and leading to a slight negative rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -55.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Clanking a barrage of open perimeter looks completely derailed the team's half-court rhythm. He managed to salvage some value by fighting over screens and applying excellent ball pressure (+5.0 Def), but the offensive struggles were too severe to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -59.4
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Getting bullied on the interior defensively (-1.8 Def) gave back far more points than he produced. Even though he converted all of his limited touches around the rim, his inability to anchor the paint against driving guards resulted in a heavily negative stint.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -73.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Will Riley 13.5m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

A drastic reduction in offensive assertiveness saw him disappear into the background during half-court sets. While he held up well in individual defensive matchups (+2.9 Def), his failure to pressure the rim or draw fouls tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Excellent positional awareness on the defensive end (+3.4 Def) and timely contests at the rim anchored a highly productive rotation. He didn't demand the ball to be effective, instead relying on smart cuts and high-energy closeouts to drive winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
AJ Johnson 12.9m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Flashing unexpected offensive confidence, he capitalized on rare touches to vastly exceed his usual scoring output. While his on-ball defense was surprisingly disruptive (+2.7 Def), a few missed rotations in transition kept his overall impact just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Operating on the fringes of the rotation, he failed to make a tangible mark on the game's momentum. A lack of playmaking and minimal rebounding presence resulted in a slightly negative stint where he mostly just traded baskets.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +64.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Maximizing a microscopic stint on the floor, he provided an instant jolt of flawless execution around the basket. His perfect shot selection paired with surprisingly stout interior defense (+2.6 Def) yielded an incredibly dense positive impact in just five minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +64.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 30.2m
35
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+31.7

Snapping out of a recent shooting slump, he paired lethal perimeter shot-making with suffocating point-of-attack defense (+10.7 Def). His ability to take over the third quarter with contested jumpers completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme and fueled a massive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 14/21 (66.7%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +46.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +28.6
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +8.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +8.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Rudy Gobert 29.3m
18
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+28.5

Absolute dominance in the paint drove a staggering overall impact score. He completely neutralized all rim attempts defensively (+10.3 Def) while punishing mismatches on the other end with hyper-efficient finishing that far exceeded his usual offensive output.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +48.6
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +16.8
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Julius Randle 25.3m
22
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.0

A relentless interior attack continued his streak of highly efficient shooting nights. While his defensive impact was merely average, his ability to consistently bully his primary matchup in the half-court generated massive offensive value.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Brutal shot selection from beyond the arc torpedoed his overall value and stalled offensive momentum. However, relentless off-ball chasing and strong perimeter rotations (+8.5 Def) prevented his cold shooting from becoming a complete liability.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +50.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 21.9m
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.8

Despite a sharp drop in scoring volume compared to recent outings, his defensive metrics (+6.0) anchored the team's perimeter coverage against opposing wings. Excellent shot selection maximized his limited touches, proving he doesn't need to force offense to dictate the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.4%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +4.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 27.6m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.6

Capitalizing on unexpected offensive opportunities, he shattered his recent scoring averages through well-timed cuts and transition finishes. That opportunistic scoring paired beautifully with his trademark defensive disruption (+8.2 Def) to create massive two-way value.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Naz Reid 20.1m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Secondary rim protection and consistent energy on loose balls (+3.5 Hustle) drove a solid positive rating. Even with his perimeter shot not falling, his willingness to battle larger bigs in the paint ensured he remained a net positive during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +45.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Bones Hyland 15.4m
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.4

Defensive apathy completely erased any offensive contributions he made as a secondary creator. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, resulting in a negative overall rating despite decent efficiency on his own shot attempts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Mike Conley 12.9m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Finding his rhythm from deep after a brutal shooting stretch, he provided a brief but necessary spacing element. His overall impact remained muted (+0.5) due to limited defensive engagement and a lack of disruptive plays during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Forcing up ill-advised perimeter looks dragged down his usually steady offensive efficiency. He managed to salvage a slightly positive rating by holding his ground on defensive switches (+3.3 Def) and contesting shots at the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -44.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

A lack of off-ball activity and minimal defensive resistance overshadowed a tidy shooting performance. He was frequently caught ball-watching on the weak side, allowing easy backdoor cuts that bled points during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Joe Ingles 8.4m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Operating strictly as a placeholder in the rotation, his inability to generate separation or force defensive rotations limited his value. While he executed defensive schemes properly, his overall passivity on offense resulted in a net negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-19.9

A disastrous rotational stint was defined by completely empty possessions and defensive breakdowns (-1.5 Def). He looked entirely out of rhythm against the opposing second unit, failing to register a single hustle play while bleeding value on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -64.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2