GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 38.1m
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

Stubborn shot selection sabotaged what was an otherwise elite defensive showing (+8.8). His refusal to attack the paint and settling for contested perimeter looks killed offensive momentum. The perimeter defensive intensity was entirely offset by a slew of missed triples.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/13 (23.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +4.9
Defense +8.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 38.1m -19.5
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 5
S Alex Sarr 36.5m
15
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.9

Exceptional rim protection and active rotations (+5.3 Def) anchored his positive impact despite a mediocre shooting night. He broke out of a recent scoring funk by aggressively attacking closeouts, even if the finishing was inconsistent. His high-motor hustle plays in the paint set a physical tone for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 36.5m -18.7
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 56.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 34.2m
20
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.7

A barrage of missed shots from the perimeter severely diluted the value of his offensive output. Forcing contested jumpers allowed the defense to leak out in transition, nearly erasing his positive box score contributions. His relentless but misguided shot hunting defined the performance.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 34.2m -17.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 34.1m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

A significant scoring surge was completely undermined by hidden costs, likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. While he found his rhythm from beyond the arc, his lack of resistance at the point of attack allowed easy blow-bys. This stark contrast between offensive production and negative total impact highlights a one-sided performance.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 34.1m -17.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Khris Middleton 28.0m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

Clanking open looks from the perimeter dragged his overall impact deep into the red. Despite a slight uptick in scoring volume compared to recent games, the sheer number of missed shots crippled the offense. His inability to separate from primary defenders forced him into tough, late-clock heaves.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 28.0m -14.3
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 20.9m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Cooled off significantly from his recent scoring tear, struggling to create separation off the bounce. While he hit a few timely perimeter shots, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to an inability to pressure the rim. Stagnant off-ball movement made him too easy to guard in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 20.9m -10.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Made his mark entirely through gritty defensive rotations and high-energy closeouts (+4.5 Def). A sharp decline in offensive volume didn't hurt the team because he focused on doing the dirty work. His willingness to sacrifice his body on screens and loose balls kept him in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 18.3m -9.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

A drastic reduction in offensive involvement snapped his streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He floated on the perimeter without demanding the ball, leading to a slightly negative overall impact. The lack of aggression in attacking mismatches defined his surprisingly quiet shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 18.2m -9.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Anthony Gill 11.7m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Offensive usage plummeted, ending a highly productive stretch of efficient scoring. However, he salvaged his impact score by executing perfectly on defensive assignments and making smart reads. A disciplined approach to his diminished role ensured he remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 11.7m -6.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 40.0m
35
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+26.4

Elite two-way dominance drove a massive +26.4 overall impact, fueled by scorching perimeter efficiency that shattered his recent scoring patterns. Exceptional defensive metrics (+11.5) suggest he completely neutralized his primary matchup on the wing. Forcing defensive adjustments with his shot-making opened up the floor for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +30.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +11.5
Raw total +46.8
Avg player in 40.0m -20.4
Impact +26.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 36.0m
24
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.4

Despite a slight dip from his recent scoring tear, active hands and defensive engagement (+8.1) fueled a strong two-way rating. He generated value through high-effort hustle plays (+6.2) rather than pure scoring volume. Controlling the tempo during transition sequences offset any minor efficiency dips.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 36.0m -18.4
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Aaron Gordon 33.4m
16
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.9

Settling for low-percentage looks from beyond the arc suppressed his overall value. While his defensive versatility (+4.5) kept him in the positive, the sheer volume of missed shots dragged down his offensive efficiency. This pattern of perimeter struggles limited his ability to punish sagging defenders.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +33.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 33.4m -17.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Pickett 32.6m
2
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.3

Impact cratered due to empty offensive possessions and an inability to generate dribble penetration. Blanking from the field compounded a pattern of offensive invisibility, making him a severe liability on that end. The steep negative total suggests hidden costs like poor spacing and likely live-ball turnovers.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 32.6m -16.5
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

A concerted effort to establish deep post position sparked a significant scoring bounce-back compared to recent outings. Physicality around the rim generated extra possessions, though a lack of defensive resistance (+0.4) capped his total impact. His ability to anchor the interior during crucial half-court sets defined his night.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 21.9m -11.3
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Passive offensive involvement and a failure to stretch the floor resulted in a noticeably negative total impact. While he provided adequate defensive resistance, his reluctance to hunt shots allowed defenders to play off him. This ongoing pattern of low-usage outings makes him a spacing liability.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 3.2%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 28.1m -14.3
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Disastrous shot selection from the perimeter completely derailed his offensive impact. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock resulted in a slew of missed shots, driving a steep negative overall score. This sharp drop-off from his recent averages highlighted his reliance on streaky shooting.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -7.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total -3.6
Avg player in 19.7m -10.1
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Bruce Brown 18.1m
6
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Snapping a long streak of highly efficient shooting, his value shifted toward gritty defensive contributions (+4.4). He compensated for missed floaters by blowing up actions on the perimeter and fighting through screens. Timely hustle plays (+3.1) maintained his positive impact despite the offensive regression.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 18.1m -9.2
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 10.1m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Brief but effective minutes were highlighted by converting high-percentage looks around the basket. He broke a brief slump of poor finishing by staying within his role as a rim-runner. Minimal defensive disruption kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 10.1m -5.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0