GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 38.2m
27
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.3

A massive scoring outburst carried his impact, though hidden negatives prevented the net score from reaching elite territory. Slicing through the defense with high-level shot creation kept the offense afloat during crucial stretches. However, the modest overall total suggests he likely gave points back through defensive lapses or turnovers.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 38.2m -21.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 34.0m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.3

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays drove an elite overall impact. He consistently blew up passing lanes and generated extra possessions, making his presence felt far beyond his shooting efficiency. The combination of high-motor activity and lockdown coverage completely neutralized his matchup.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +14.2
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 34.0m -19.5
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alex Sarr 30.9m
23
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.4

Elite two-way dominance defined this breakout performance, combining rim protection with versatile scoring. Stretching the floor from deep opened up driving lanes, while his massive defensive rating indicates he erased multiple opponent actions at the basket. This was a complete, game-altering presence that dictated the flow on both ends.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +10.2
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 30.9m -17.8
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 22.6m
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Clanking heavily contested jumpers and likely foul costs undermined a solid rebounding effort. Hunting his shot through double teams led to a string of empty possessions that stalled the half-court offense. The negative net score reflects how much his inefficiency actively hurt the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 22.6m -12.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tre Johnson 22.5m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.0

Forcing up heavily contested perimeter looks tanked his offensive value and dragged his overall score deep into the red. The inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. While he battled defensively, the poor shot quality was too detrimental to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 22.5m -12.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Brick-laying from the perimeter and poor offensive execution dragged his impact down despite tremendous hustle. The inability to hit from outside allowed the defense to pack the paint, stalling out several possessions. While his defensive activity was commendable, the offensive stagnation was too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 31.0m -17.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Lethal perimeter spacing and hyper-efficient finishing fueled a massive positive swing. Punishing defensive rotations by knocking down nearly every look from deep completely changed the floor geometry. His ability to capitalize on spot-up opportunities without demanding the ball maximized his value.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.9%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 22.2m -12.7
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

High-level defensive anchoring and active rebounding drove a strong positive score, masking his struggles from the floor. Controlling the interior and altering shots at the rim provided immense value that didn't rely on his scoring touch. He found ways to dominate the possession battle even when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 17.1m -9.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Will Riley 12.3m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

A severe drop in offensive production and costly hidden errors resulted in a highly negative performance. Unable to find his usual scoring rhythm, he likely forced actions that led to turnovers or transition opportunities for the opponent. The lack of defensive resistance only compounded his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -39.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 12.3m -7.0
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Johnson 6.3m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A brief, ineffective stint was marred by a lack of involvement and likely defensive mistakes. Failing to generate any positive momentum, his minutes were a slight drain on the rotation. The negative impact stems from an inability to establish any presence on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -76.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 6.3m -3.6
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Barely registered a pulse during a fleeting appearance that offered no tangible value. The slight negative score indicates he was likely on the floor for an opponent run without contributing to the pushback. He simply didn't have the time or opportunity to impact the game's trajectory.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -108.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.9m -1.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 24.5m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.4

A sharp drop in offensive volume and severe hidden negatives tanked his overall rating despite decent shooting efficiency. His inability to generate his usual rim pressure allowed the defense to dictate terms, likely resulting in costly turnovers or forced actions. The resulting negative swing completely erased his positive defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 24.5m -14.0
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Desmond Bane 23.6m
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Efficient shot-making was entirely undone by hidden mistakes that bled value elsewhere. Despite converting looks cleanly, his overall impact cratered, pointing to a high volume of live-ball turnovers or poor transition defense that handed points right back. The scoring punch was essentially a mirage masking a sloppy floor game.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 23.6m -13.5
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Perimeter spacing and active defensive rotations fueled a solid positive impact. Hitting from deep stretched the floor effectively, while his high defensive rating suggests he consistently blew up opponent actions on the wing. He managed to provide high-leverage two-way play without needing dominant usage.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -58.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 21.9m -12.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Black 20.5m
6
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.9

Disastrous perimeter shooting and poor offensive decision-making resulted in a massively negative showing. Forcing up empty looks from deep stalled possessions and allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. Without any playmaking or defensive dominance to compensate, his minutes were a severe drain on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -42.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total -4.1
Avg player in 20.5m -11.8
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
2
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Offensive execution fell off a cliff after a highly efficient streak, dragging his net score into the red. Clanking multiple looks inside disrupted the half-court rhythm and offset a genuinely disruptive defensive performance. His rim protection remained elite, but the empty offensive possessions were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -42.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 19.6m -11.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 27.5m
3
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.6

Brutal shot selection and an inability to connect from outside severely damaged his net impact. Settling for contested jumpers rather than orchestrating the offense led to empty trips and stalled momentum. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't salvage a performance defined by offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 27.5m -15.6
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 26.9m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Elite defensive disruption and relentless hustle completely redefined his role in this matchup. Coming out of nowhere offensively, he capitalized on broken plays while locking down his assignment on the other end. The massive spike in two-way activity provided a crucial spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.6
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 26.9m -15.3
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
20
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

An unexpected explosion of perimeter shot-making and high-energy play drove a stellar overall rating. Hunting his shot with confidence completely changed the geometry of the floor, forcing the defense into uncomfortable rotations. His active hands and constant motion ensured the impact translated beyond just the scoring column.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 25.7m -14.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Goga Bitadze 20.2m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

A massive surge in interior finishing drove a highly positive box score, though defensive lapses capped his overall ceiling. Capitalizing on dump-offs and offensive putbacks generated crucial momentum during his stint. However, a negative defensive rating indicates he was likely targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, giving back some of that hard-earned value.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 20.2m -11.5
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 15.7m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.0

Aggressive shot-hunting inside the arc neutralized any value gained from his perimeter makes. The volume of empty possessions canceled out the spacing benefits, yielding a perfectly neutral overall impact. He managed to tread water, but the inefficiency prevented a true positive swing.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +63.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 15.7m -8.9
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.2

Absolute dominance in limited minutes, driven by elite rim protection and hyper-efficient finishing. He completely shut off the paint defensively while capitalizing on every offensive touch he was given. This was a masterclass in maximizing per-minute impact without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 11.7m -6.7
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jamal Cain 2.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Barely saw the floor, resulting in a negligible impact score that snapped a highly efficient streak. The lack of playing time prevented him from establishing any rhythm or contributing to the rotation. His brief stint was entirely uneventful, offering neither positive momentum nor costly mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0