GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 33.6m
21
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

High-volume interior scoring was offset by a complete inability to connect from beyond the arc. While he bullied his way to the rim effectively, the missed perimeter shots and resulting empty possessions dragged his net impact down. Solid defensive effort couldn't fully compensate for the spacing issues he created.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 33.6m -17.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Caleb Martin 32.5m
4
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.7

Outstanding defensive metrics were completely undone by poor shot selection and offensive inefficiency. He struggled to convert open looks, bogging down half-court possessions. Despite his elite effort on the less glamorous end, the missed opportunities weighed down his overall score.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.2
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 32.5m -16.5
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Max Christie 32.2m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.6

A disastrous shooting night from the perimeter completely cratered his overall value. Despite putting in solid work on the defensive end, his inability to punish closeouts or hit open jumpers killed offensive momentum. The sheer volume of missed shots overwhelmed any positive contributions he made elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 32.2m -16.3
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Naji Marshall 32.2m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

High-volume scoring was overshadowed by empty possessions and defensive miscommunications that dragged down his overall impact. While he found success attacking the basket, he occasionally stalled the offense by forcing tough, contested looks. The negative weight of missed shots and subtle rotational errors tipped his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 32.2m -16.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Daniel Gafford 20.9m
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.6

Continued a streak of ruthless efficiency in the paint, converting lob threats and dump-offs at a high clip. His rim-running gravity opened up the floor, while his interior defense deterred multiple drives. A highly effective, low-mistake performance that anchored the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 20.9m -10.6
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.2

Provided steady screen-setting and rebounding, but offered almost zero scoring threat to keep the defense honest. His lack of offensive gravity allowed opponents to crowd the paint and stifle drives. Minimal defensive impact further limited his ability to positively influence the game.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 26.6m -13.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaden Hardy 24.3m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Provided a crucial spark off the bench with timely perimeter shot-making and active hands on defense. He capitalized on transition opportunities and maintained excellent spacing in the half-court. A well-rounded, efficient stint that positively shifted the momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 24.3m -12.3
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Inefficient shot creation and a lack of defensive disruption resulted in a negative net rating despite decent scoring volume. He struggled to break down his primary defender, leading to contested looks and stalled possessions. The offensive friction outweighed his raw scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 23.7m -12.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Defensive vulnerabilities at the point of attack were ruthlessly exploited during his short time on the floor. While he managed to find a few scoring opportunities, he gave up too much ground on the other end. The inability to contain dribble penetration heavily damaged his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.9
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 9.9m -5.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Made the most of a very brief appearance by executing defensive rotations flawlessly. His high-energy closeouts and positional awareness yielded a quick positive impact. A flawless, albeit tiny, sample size of garbage-time execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 4.0m -2.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 38.1m
20
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.9

Bounced back from a recent scoring slump, though inefficient shooting volume capped his offensive ceiling. Stellar defensive engagement proved to be the real difference-maker, consistently disrupting passing lanes and staying in front of his man. The two-way effort balanced out the missed jumpers to yield a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 38.1m -19.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Julius Randle 33.6m
31
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.6

Sustained interior dominance and high-efficiency finishing drove a massive box score impact. He consistently bullied defenders in the paint, extending a streak of highly accurate shooting performances. Added value through steady defensive positioning and rebounding hustle to round out a stellar outing.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +27.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 33.6m -17.0
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 30.4m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

A sharp drop-off in scoring aggression severely limited his overall effectiveness tonight. Defensive metrics dipped into the negative, suggesting he struggled to contain his primary matchup on the perimeter. The lack of two-way impact and empty offensive possessions ultimately dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 30.4m -15.4
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Exceptional defensive activity defined this performance, completely overshadowing a quiet scoring night. He generated tremendous value through relentless perimeter pressure and high-motor hustle plays. Even with his shot not falling, his off-ball energy was a major net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +11.8
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.6m -13.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 20.6m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite rim protection and defensive anchoring kept his value afloat despite a muted offensive showing. A lack of scoring volume and limited minutes suppressed his overall rating, though he remained a major deterrent in the paint. His defensive gravity alone nearly offset the quiet night on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.4
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 20.6m -10.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
Naz Reid 28.0m
23
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

An aggressive scoring outburst broke a recent slump and fueled a highly productive stint. He paired this offensive surge with excellent defensive positioning and constant activity on the glass. The combination of high-volume finishing and two-way energy resulted in a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.3
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 28.0m -14.2
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
Mike Conley 22.5m
6
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Playmaking and steady defensive positioning weren't quite enough to overcome the negative weight of missed shots. He struggled to find an offensive rhythm, continuing a recent trend of inefficient scoring. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and disrupt the broader offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 22.5m -11.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Maximized his short stint with highly efficient finishing around the basket. He capitalized on every touch, providing a massive, unexpected scoring punch off the bench. Solid rotational defense ensured he didn't give back the value he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 15.9m -8.1
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Bones Hyland 12.2m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

A slight dip in scoring efficiency and minor defensive lapses kept his impact just below neutral. While he provided some secondary playmaking, his inability to consistently break down defenders limited his overall effectiveness. The lack of defensive resistance ultimately tipped his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 12.2m -6.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 11.1m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Complete offensive invisibility in limited action tanked his overall rating. Failing to register any scoring impact or significant defensive disruption left him as a net negative on the floor. He simply couldn't find a way to influence the game during his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +44.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 11.1m -5.5
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0