GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 36.6m
19
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.8

Overcame a high volume of missed interior looks by generating immense value through off-ball activity and flawless defensive rotations. His willingness to fight through screens and blow up pick-and-roll actions disrupted the opponent's primary initiators all game long.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +6.6
Defense +12.8
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 36.6m -22.8
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 44.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 36.1m
29
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.9

A staggering volume of offensive usage yielded massive overall value thanks to elite rim deterrence and constant pressure on the defense. Even with numerous missed attempts, his sheer physical dominance in the paint against opposing centers completely dictated the terms of engagement and anchored the victory.

Shooting
FG 11/29 (37.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +19.1
Raw total +43.3
Avg player in 36.1m -22.4
Impact +20.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 6
TO 2
S Tre Johnson 32.0m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Punished drop coverages with decisive, high-quality shot selection from all three levels. His efficient scoring maximized offensive possessions, though a pattern of late-game defensive miscommunications kept his overall impact from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 32.0m -19.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Bilal Coulibaly 27.6m
5
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.7

Sacrificed his own scoring volume to act as a crucial connective playmaker and defensive stopper on the wing. By shutting down primary assignments in isolation and keeping the ball moving, he provided quiet but essential positive value.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +9.2
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 27.6m -17.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Khris Middleton 26.8m
19
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.8

Operated as a stabilizing force in the half-court, using methodical pacing to pick apart defensive coverages and generate high-quality looks. His timely shot-making against tight isolation defense snapped a recent slump and heavily tilted the court in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +10.4
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 26.8m -16.6
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Struggled to find a rhythm as a primary initiator, with errant passes and forced drives bleeding significant value. While he competed hard defensively, his offensive stagnation and poor decision-making in traffic heavily outweighed the positives.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 28.0m -17.5
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.6

Costly mistakes off the ball and a complete lack of offensive involvement resulted in a highly detrimental stint. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, severely bogging down the team's half-court execution during the second half.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 18.1m -11.2
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Rushed his offensive reads, leading to contested misses that immediately sparked opponent fast breaks. Despite showing good energy in passing lanes, the negative swing from his poor shot selection ultimately defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 12.0m -7.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 10.9m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made the most of limited touches by taking only high-percentage looks and keeping the offense flowing. His brief appearance was defined by mistake-free basketball and solid rotational defense, yielding a slight net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 10.9m -6.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided a brief burst of physical interior play during a short rotational stint. His textbook box-outs against larger bigs helped maintain the status quo without moving the needle significantly in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -57.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 6.2m -3.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Looked out of sync during a very brief cameo, failing to establish deep post position or alter shots at the rim. A quick missed jumper and a blown defensive assignment contributed to a slightly negative showing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -92.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.6m -2.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Injected immediate scoring punch by capitalizing on his only open look during garbage time. The sample size was too small to draw broader conclusions, but he executed his spacing role perfectly in the fleeting moments he played.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +65.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 2.1m -1.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Shaedon Sharpe 35.0m
31
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Elite shot-making quality fueled a strong offensive rating, though his final impact score was dampened by defensive lapses on the perimeter. His ability to create separation and hit heavily contested jumpers late in the shot clock kept the offense afloat during stagnant half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.2
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 35.0m -21.8
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Toumani Camara 32.9m
16
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.3

Severe ball security issues and costly defensive fouls completely wiped out the value of his perimeter efficiency. The defining pattern of his night was committing live-ball turnovers that instantly ignited the opponent's transition offense, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 32.9m -20.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Deni Avdija 30.7m
17
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.0

A heavy volume of forced, contested looks in the paint severely damaged his offensive rating. His inability to finish through contact during a crucial third-quarter stretch allowed the defense to leak out, neutralizing his otherwise solid on-ball defensive efforts.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 30.7m -19.1
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Donovan Clingan 30.0m
14
pts
20
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.6

Dominated the interior through sheer physical force, generating immense value via extra possessions and elite rim deterrence. His relentless activity on the offensive glass against smaller frontcourt matchups masked a high volume of missed tip-ins and anchored the team's success.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +7.5
Defense +11.8
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 30.0m -18.6
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 36
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 30.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 24.7m
5
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.2

An uncharacteristically brutal night of shot selection cratered his offensive value, as a barrage of forced jumpers derailed the team's spacing. The sheer volume of empty possessions against drop coverage proved too costly to overcome, despite maintaining his usual point-of-attack defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 2/14 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 16.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 24.7m -15.3
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Jerami Grant 23.7m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.0

Settled for difficult perimeter isolation plays instead of attacking the paint, resulting in highly inefficient offensive trips. This lack of rim pressure allowed the opposition to set their half-court defense and build momentum during his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 23.7m -14.8
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 19.2m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.1

Provided a massive two-way spark by combining lockdown perimeter defense with highly opportunistic transition finishing. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs and immediately convert those deflections into easy buckets defined his highly positive stint.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +13.2
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 19.2m -11.9
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
Caleb Love 16.5m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Forced too many contested looks early in the possession, which tanked his overall efficiency and disrupted the offensive flow. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, heavily outweighing his minor contributions in passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 16.5m -10.3
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 15.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Poor decision-making led to quick, empty trips down the floor that stalled offensive momentum. His tendency to bite on pump fakes during perimeter closeouts negated his hustle metrics, resulting in a highly detrimental stint overall.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 15.4m -9.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Hansen Yang 11.9m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Generated solid value through fundamentally sound screening and positional defense, even if his touch around the basket was slightly off. His ability to seal off driving lanes during the second quarter helped stabilize the backup unit's defensive structure.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 11.9m -7.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1