GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bilal Coulibaly 29.5m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.8

Impact cratered dramatically (-11.8 Total) due to a passive offensive approach and a slew of unforced errors. He faded into the background on offense, failing to pressure the rim or space the floor effectively. The resulting stagnant spacing allowed the defense to load up, bleeding value across his entire stint and stalling the offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -45.7
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 29.5m -15.4
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Alex Sarr 25.2m
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

A welcome uptick in scoring volume was completely undone by costly mistakes that tanked his net impact (-6.6 Total). Despite finding his touch offensively, his inability to anchor the defensive glass allowed crippling second-chance points. The raw production was there, but poor shot selection in key moments and situational defensive lapses remained highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 25.2m -13.0
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 25.2m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Timely shot-making and highly disruptive perimeter defense (+5.7 Def) generated a solid positive return. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by attacking closeouts decisively rather than settling for contested jumpers. His two-way engagement during the middle quarters helped stabilize the lineup and swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 25.2m -13.1
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyshawn George 23.6m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Solid perimeter shot-making inflated his box score, but his overall impact slid into the red (-2.5 Total) due to defensive miscommunications. He frequently lost his man off the ball, surrendering easy backdoor cuts that negated his offensive contributions. A performance where the counting stats masked underlying structural leaks and poor closeout angles.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 23.6m -12.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 20.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

A severe lack of offensive rhythm (-4.6 Box) heavily penalized his overall impact, continuing a troubling trend of poor shooting efficiency. He struggled to separate from his primary defender, leading to stalled possessions and forced late-clock attempts. The minor defensive positives were entirely overshadowed by his inability to generate reliable offense or bend the defense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 20.9m -10.9
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

Flashes of playmaking and solid defensive metrics were wiped out by a highly negative overall rating (-6.1 Total). He suffered from poor shot selection and ill-timed turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. While the raw tools were visible, the negative swing plays and rushed decisions dictated his true effectiveness on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 28.8m -14.9
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Hyper-efficient scoring and locked-in point-of-attack defense (+6.2 Def) defined a highly productive two-way shift. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, refusing to force the issue while punishing defensive lapses. His ability to navigate screens defensively completely disrupted the opponent's backcourt rhythm and fueled transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 105.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 23.7m -12.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Elite defensive positioning (+9.3 Def) and high-motor hustle plays drove a highly positive impact despite a brutal shooting night. He refused to let his offensive struggles dictate his effort, consistently blowing up pick-and-rolls and securing contested rebounds. A masterclass in finding alternative ways to influence winning when the jumper isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 22.7m -11.8
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
12
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Sustained his recent streak of high-efficiency basketball, using relentless offensive rebounding to drive a strong box score impact (+13.2). He punished smaller defenders in the paint and capitalized on every second-chance opportunity. A highly physical performance that consistently tilted the possession battle in his team's favor and wore down the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +13.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 21.6m -11.2
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 15.9m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.0

A surprising burst of offensive aggression perfectly balanced his overall impact to a dead neutral rating. He attacked the glass well for his position, but those gains were likely offset by rookie mistakes in defensive transition. Ultimately, he provided a chaotic but even energy boost off the bench, defined by high-risk, high-reward plays.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 15.9m -8.2
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A brief, three-minute appearance snapped a highly efficient recent stretch of basketball. He barely had time to break a sweat, resulting in a negligible negative impact score. The game flow simply didn't allow him to establish his usual reliable interior presence or impact the rebounding battle.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.8m -1.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 36.1m
35
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.8

Elite shot-making fueled a massive positive impact, as he relentlessly punished drop coverage to double his recent scoring average. His defensive rotations (+10.9 Def) completely suffocated the perimeter, ensuring his offensive explosion translated directly to the bottom line. A dominant two-way showcase that broke the game open during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 7/16 (43.8%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.1%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +38.8
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +27.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +10.9
Raw total +40.6
Avg player in 36.1m -18.8
Impact +21.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 34.7m
14
pts
16
reb
12
ast
Impact
+7.7

Relentless activity on the glass and exceptional playmaking from the post anchored his highly positive overall impact. His hustle metrics (+5.3) highlight a willingness to do the dirty work, creating extra possessions that swung the momentum. Operating as a crucial offensive hub, his passing vision punished defensive double-teams and generated wide-open looks for cutters.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +5.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 34.7m -18.0
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Jeremiah Fears 31.9m
21
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.8

Strong individual defensive metrics (+7.5 Def) couldn't completely rescue a slightly negative overall impact. Hidden inefficiencies—likely live-ball turnovers or poor spacing—dragged down the lineup's net rating despite his usual scoring punch. A classic case where solid on-ball pressure was negated by disjointed offensive execution and rushed decisions in traffic.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +7.5
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 31.9m -16.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 6
S Zion Williamson 29.2m
31
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.6

Unstoppable interior finishing drove a stellar offensive rating, as he bullied his primary matchups to significantly outpace his recent scoring trends. He paired this physical dominance with active hands on the defensive end (+6.3 Def) to prevent easy counter-attacks. The sheer gravitational pull he exerted in the paint dictated the entire flow of the game and collapsed the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 12/14 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/13 (53.8%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.3
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 29.2m -15.1
Impact +17.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bryce McGowens 28.5m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Despite decent hustle metrics, his overall impact plunged into the negative (-6.0 Total) due to costly empty possessions and poor shot selection. He struggled to find an offensive rhythm, forcing contested looks that triggered opponent transition opportunities. The underlying defensive lapses and mistimed closeouts ultimately outweighed his flashes of energy.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 28.5m -14.8
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Peavy 27.7m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

An unexpected scoring surge provided a nice box score boost, but his overall footprint remained negative (-3.9 Total). His high hustle rating (+4.4) was offset by defensive breakdowns and mistimed rotations that bled points on the other end. The energy was palpable, yet it lacked the discipline required to drive winning basketball against a set defense.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 27.7m -14.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Excellent defensive tracking (+6.0 Def) kept his head above water despite a noticeable dip in his recent hyper-efficient shooting. He struggled to find clean looks on the perimeter, but compensated by locking down his assignment and fighting over screens. The neutral total impact reflects a gritty effort to salvage an off-shooting night through sheer defensive willpower.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 20.4m -10.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Yves Missi 12.7m
3
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Quiet offensive production was perfectly balanced by sturdy rim protection and disciplined positioning (+4.0 Def). He embraced a low-usage role, focusing entirely on deterring drives and securing the defensive glass to keep his overall impact positive. A steadying, unselfish presence that stabilized the second unit during a chaotic stretch of the first half.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 12.7m -6.6
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jordan Poole 11.7m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.9

A completely derailed offensive stint cratered his impact score in just under 12 minutes of action. Failing to generate any scoring gravity, his empty trips and defensive apathy (-3.0 Def) allowed the opposition to build massive momentum. This performance was defined by a total lack of engagement and poor shot selection that actively hurt the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -7.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -3.0
Raw total -9.8
Avg player in 11.7m -6.1
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Maximized a brief five-minute cameo through sharp defensive rotations and efficient movement. Even with a sharp drop in scoring volume compared to his recent hot streak, his ability to contest shots without fouling (+2.6 Def) provided an immediate spark. Proved highly effective as a situational rim deterrent during a crucial transitional stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 5.4m -2.7
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely registered a blip during a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation. The slight negative impact (-0.9 Total) stems from being on the floor during a quick opponent run. Simply not enough court time to establish any meaningful rhythm or defensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0