GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 22.8m
6
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.0

Poor shot selection from the perimeter and defensive vulnerabilities severely punished his overall rating. Although he managed to distribute the ball effectively, his missed jumpers fueled opponent transition opportunities. The negative defensive metrics highlight how often he was targeted and exploited on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 22.8m -13.0
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bilal Coulibaly 21.4m
15
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, his aggressive slashing paired beautifully with high-level defensive disruption. He generated extra possessions through active hustle, compounding the value of his efficient scoring. A well-rounded performance that showcased his ability to impact winning across multiple categories.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 21.4m -12.3
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyshawn George 19.0m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Despite decent shooting efficiency, a severe lack of overall involvement and off-ball gravity dragged his total impact down. He floated through his minutes without generating meaningful defensive pressure or hustle stats to justify his floor time. The negative score reflects a player who was simply a passenger while the opponent went on runs.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 19.0m -11.0
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.1

Near-perfect finishing around the rim combined with elite defensive positioning to produce a staggering net impact. He punished mismatches ruthlessly while simultaneously walling off the paint on the other end. This two-way dominance in limited minutes completely tilted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.7
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 18.7m -10.7
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Khris Middleton 17.8m
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

A massive bounce-back in shooting efficiency yielded strong box score metrics, but defensive lapses kept him hovering right around neutral. While his perimeter stroke finally returned, his inability to string together stops prevented him from driving a true positive margin. A step in the right direction offensively that lacked two-way synergy.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 17.8m -10.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 30.2m
18
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.9

Heavy reliance on the three-point shot salvaged an otherwise inefficient shooting night from the floor. His willingness to keep firing from deep stretched the defense, while secondary playmaking kept the offense flowing. A positive impact driven more by offensive volume and spacing than pure shot-making precision.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 30.2m -17.3
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Johnson 27.3m
17
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.0

A massive, unexpected scoring outburst completely masked underlying structural issues during his floor time. The severe negative total impact suggests his points came at the expense of team flow, likely accompanied by costly defensive breakdowns or poor transition defense. Empty calories defined this performance, as the team bled points while he was hunting his shot.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 27.3m -15.6
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
Anthony Gill 27.2m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

An abrupt end to his highly efficient scoring streak left a massive void in the offensive rotation. While he fought hard to compensate with elite hustle and solid defensive positioning, the complete lack of scoring gravity doomed his minutes. You cannot survive such a severe negative impact when playing 4-on-5 offensively for nearly half the game.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 27.2m -15.7
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Dominant interior defense and highly efficient finishing created a massive two-way advantage. He punished defensive rotations with decisive moves around the basket while serving as an impenetrable backline anchor. A masterclass in executing a frontcourt role without forcing bad looks or making mistakes.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 26.6m -15.1
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Gritty rebounding and high-level defensive execution drove a highly productive shift off the bench. He didn't need to dominate the ball to be effective, instead capitalizing on second-chance opportunities and loose balls. This blue-collar approach ensured his minutes were a decisive net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 16.0m -9.2
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

A sudden drop in scoring aggression limited his ability to collapse the defense and create advantages. While he rebounded exceptionally well for a guard, his lack of offensive assertiveness allowed opponents to dictate the tempo during his stint. The slight negative score reflects a passive stretch where he failed to impose his will.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 13.0m -7.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Zach LaVine 35.4m
35
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.3

High-volume perimeter creation fueled a dominant offensive rating, though the sheer number of missed shots slightly capped his ceiling. He balanced the heavy offensive load with surprisingly stout defensive metrics, preventing opponents from exploiting him on the other end. An aggressive scoring mentality dictated the game's tempo and ultimately drove winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 35.4m -20.4
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 32.5m
32
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.3

Surgical shot selection generated a massive positive impact, far exceeding his recent scoring baselines. Generating high-quality looks kept the offense humming, while steady defensive positioning ensured he didn't give those gains back. A masterclass in maximizing offensive possessions without bleeding value elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 32.5m -18.7
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Nique Clifford 28.9m
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Despite a sharp decline in scoring volume, exceptional hustle and defensive activity kept his net impact in the green. He embraced a gritty role player identity, generating extra possessions and disrupting opponent sets rather than forcing his own offense. This low-usage, high-energy approach perfectly masked his quiet shooting night.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 28.9m -16.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 27.4m
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Continuing a highly efficient stretch, reliable interior finishing provided a strong offensive baseline. What truly elevated his net impact, however, was his two-way engagement, highlighted by robust defensive metrics and active hustle plays. He anchored the paint effectively, ensuring high-value contributions on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 27.4m -15.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A sudden drop in finishing efficiency dragged his overall impact into the negative after a strong stretch of games. Forcing low-percentage looks around the rim short-circuited offensive possessions during his brief stint. He failed to offset these empty trips with meaningful hustle or defensive disruption.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -57.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 9.3m -5.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Completely vanishing from the offensive game plan resulted in a severe negative overall impact. Going scoreless after a highly productive stretch forced his teammates to play 4-on-5 on that end of the floor. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't salvage a performance defined by total offensive passivity.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 24.4m -14.0
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Perfect shot selection and a refusal to waste possessions resulted in a steady, positive contribution. His true value came from defensive anchoring, where he consistently deterred action in the paint to generate a strong defensive impact. Playing within himself allowed him to be a flawless rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 20.1m -11.5
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

Facilitating for others and playing stout defense kept his underlying metrics strong, but a lack of scoring gravity ultimately tipped his overall impact into the red. Refusing to look for his own shot allowed the defense to sag off him, clogging spacing for his teammates. A classic case of passing up good looks leading to a slight negative outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 19.0m -10.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 17.4m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Disastrous perimeter shooting cratered his offensive impact, as a barrage of forced jumpers resulted in empty trips. While he tried to compensate with high-energy hustle and solid defensive rotations, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. The stark departure from his usual scoring punch left a glaring hole in the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -7.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 17.4m -10.0
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Devin Carter 15.9m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Offensive struggles were entirely offset by relentless defensive pressure and a willingness to do the dirty work. He abandoned his struggling jumper to focus on disrupting passing lanes and fighting for loose balls. This shift in priorities allowed him to remain a net positive despite a significant drop in scoring output.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 15.9m -9.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Delivered exactly what was asked during a brief stint by burying his lone perimeter attempt to stretch the floor. He didn't stay on the court long enough to accumulate defensive liabilities, resulting in a marginal but positive net score. A pure specialist executing his role without bleeding value elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +90.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 5.6m -3.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Maximizing a brief cameo, he converted his only look and secured the glass without making any mistakes. Avoiding turnovers or defensive lapses in short minutes is exactly what is required from an end-of-bench rotation piece. A perfectly clean, albeit tiny, shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -62.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 4.0m -2.3
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0