GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 35.5m
23
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.9

Relentless rim pressure and elite defensive disruption drove a massive positive rating. Despite high-volume inefficiency from deep, his constant downhill attacks repeatedly forced the defense into rotation. He completely locked down the opposing wings during a crucial third-quarter stretch to seal his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +11.4
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 35.5m -19.0
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 31.5m
16
pts
17
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.9

Absolute dominance on the glass and stellar rim deterrence fueled a highly impactful performance. Consistently ending opponent possessions with authoritative closeouts prevented any second-chance momentum. Breaking out of a recent slump, his dive-man gravity heavily warped the opposing frontcourt all night.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.0
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 31.5m -16.8
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 27.8m
8
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

High-level defensive versatility and rebounding from the wing position kept him firmly in the green. Perfectly executing switch-heavy schemes allowed him to neutralize the opponent's primary pick-and-roll actions. A low-usage offensive role limited his overall ceiling, but he made absolutely zero systemic mistakes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 27.8m -14.9
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 26.0m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.6

Defensive sluggishness and poor transition tracking dragged his impact into the negative despite a noticeable scoring bump. Routinely getting beat off the dribble forced teammates to over-help and concede open perimeter looks. The offensive production simply couldn't mask how much he yielded on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 26.0m -13.9
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tre Johnson 11.5m
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A completely neutral outing where forced perimeter shots were offset by decent connective passing. Struggling to find separation against physical defenders led to several clunky isolation attempts. However, avoiding costly turnovers and defensive gambles kept him from sinking into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 11.5m -6.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.6

Defensive miscommunications and struggles navigating screens resulted in a net negative showing. Frequently dying on ball screens gave up crucial downhill momentum to opposing guards. The respectable shooting splits were heavily undermined by his inability to contain straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 28.5m -15.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Marginal positive impact was built entirely on timely baseline cuts and disciplined defensive closeouts. Filling the lanes effectively in transition generated easy looks before the defense could properly set. Nothing spectacular defined his night, but a strict adherence to the offensive system provided steady value.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 25.9m -13.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A horrific shooting night dragged down what was otherwise an excellent hustle performance. Bricking multiple wide-open spot-up looks completely killed the team's offensive spacing. Only his relentless crashing of the defensive glass prevented his impact score from cratering much further.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 20.7m -11.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Riley 18.5m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A sharp drop in offensive aggression and poor shot quality fueled a noticeably negative rating. Looking hesitant when attacking closeouts, he frequently settled for contested bail-out jumpers late in the clock. Without his usual scoring punch, a severe lack of playmaking became a glaring liability.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 18.5m -9.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Empty offensive possessions and a lack of defensive resistance resulted in a slight negative impact. Failing to bend the defense on his drives routinely stalled the half-court sets. A complete inability to generate free throw attempts highlighted his lack of physical force at the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 14.1m -7.5
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Myles Turner 39.4m
21
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.3

Elite rim protection and flawless defensive anchoring fueled a massive overall impact. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, he stretched the floor just enough to keep drop-coverage bigs honest. Controlling the paint from the opening tip completely neutralized the opponent's driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +16.1
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 39.4m -21.1
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 32.0%
STL 0
BLK 6
TO 2
S AJ Green 37.0m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.9

A complete perimeter shooting freeze-out cratered his overall impact to a team-worst rating. Missing all his outside looks stalled the spacing, allowing perimeter defenders to aggressively sag into the paint. Even a commendable effort tracking loose balls couldn't salvage the disastrous offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.5%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 37.0m -19.8
Impact -16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Bobby Portis 36.4m
19
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Strong defensive positioning and relentless activity on the glass drove a solid positive impact. He capitalized on favorable frontcourt matchups to generate timely second-chance opportunities. His aggressive interior presence set a physical tone that the opposition struggled to match.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 36.4m -19.4
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kyle Kuzma 34.6m
19
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.1

Despite a scoring surge above his recent baseline, his overall impact sank deep into the red. Poor perimeter shot selection and forced isolation attempts derailed offensive momentum. He settled for heavily contested mid-range looks whenever the half-court sets bogged down.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 34.6m -18.5
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ryan Rollins 26.5m
17
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.8

High-level playmaking and efficient perimeter shot creation drove a robust positive rating. Consistently breaking down the primary point-of-attack defender allowed him to easily collapse the defense. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his value by sparking immediate transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.8
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 26.5m -14.2
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.5

An inability to punish closeouts resulted in a steep negative impact across his minutes. Hesitating on catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed the defense to reset and smother his subsequent drives. This lack of perimeter gravity severely cramped the floor for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 24.8m -13.2
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Pete Nance 20.1m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Smart off-ball cutting and decisive finishing around the rim anchored a highly positive shift. Exploiting defensive over-rotations by slipping screens at the perfect moment kept the offense humming. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the points he efficiently generated.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 20.1m -10.7
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cole Anthony 17.6m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Highly inefficient chucking completely derailed the second unit's offensive flow. Forcing heavily contested floaters early in the shot clock repeatedly short-circuited offensive sets. The resulting long rebounds from his misses directly fueled opponent fast breaks, compounding the damage.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.7%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 17.6m -9.3
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Barely seeing the floor didn't stop him from bleeding value through quick defensive lapses. A blown rotation in the corner highlighted a brief, highly ineffective stint. He failed to establish any rhythm or physical presence during his limited rotational run.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 3.5m -1.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0