GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 26.0m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

High-energy closeouts and active hands generated solid hustle metrics, but reckless decision-making with the ball wiped out that value. He repeatedly drove into crowded paint areas, resulting in deflections that ignited opponent fast breaks. The defensive effort was commendable, yet his offensive erraticism ultimately tipped the scales into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -57.3
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 26.0m -13.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Alex Sarr 24.5m
11
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Elite rim deterrence and multiple second-effort challenges defined his defensive presence inside. However, a tendency to settle for contested mid-range jumpers rather than rolling hard to the basket capped his overall effectiveness. His motor never stopped running, which kept his impact slightly above water despite the inefficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -57.8
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 24.5m -12.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 24.5m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Poor shot selection and a string of ill-advised, early-clock pull-ups handed momentum straight to the opposition. He struggled to stay in front of his man defensively, offering little resistance at the point of attack. The raw scoring output was heavily outweighed by the structural damage his decision-making caused to the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 24.5m -12.8
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.4m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

Complete offensive passivity cratered his rating, as he routinely deferred to teammates even when presented with driving lanes. While his length disrupted several passing angles on defense, his refusal to engage on the other end effectively forced his team to play four-on-five. The stark drop in aggression from recent games stalled the entire offensive system.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 24.4m -12.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 22.4m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Defensive sluggishness completely undermined a resurgent scoring night. He was consistently late navigating through off-ball screens, surrendering multiple open looks to perimeter shooters. The offensive rhythm he found in isolation sets couldn't mask how often he was exploited on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -66.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 22.4m -11.7
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 25.3m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

A balanced, methodical approach to attacking closeouts kept the offense humming during his shifts. He gave back some of his offensive value by getting caught ball-watching on backdoor cuts. Ultimately, his ability to generate his own shot stabilized the second unit just enough to break even.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 25.3m -13.3
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
AJ Johnson 23.6m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

An unexpected burst of perimeter confidence completely caught the defense off guard. He decisively attacked shifting zones, finding the seams for timely floaters that kept the chains moving. This sudden offensive awakening forced adjustments that opened up the floor for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 23.6m -12.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

A sudden inability to finish at the rim plagued his performance, snapping a recent streak of high-efficiency outings. He forced several contested looks in traffic rather than kicking out to open shooters, killing multiple possessions. Even with active hands on the glass, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his impact score into the basement.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.7%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 20.3m -10.7
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Over-dribbling in the half-court frequently bogged down the offensive flow and led to late-clock desperation heaves. Despite showing great lateral quickness to stay in front of his assignment, his risky passes were easily picked off by lurking help defenders. The dynamic flashes were ultimately undone by a lack of ball security.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 18.5m -9.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Dominating the interior with quick second jumps, he punished the opposition for failing to secure defensive rebounds. His defensive rating spiked due to excellent vertical contests that forced misses without drawing fouls. He maximized a short stint by playing with a level of physicality that the opposing frontcourt simply couldn't match.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 15.8m -8.2
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Floating aimlessly around the perimeter, he failed to leverage his size to create any meaningful advantages. He offered minimal resistance in the paint, allowing smaller guards to finish through him without fear of a contest. The lack of physical engagement rendered his brief time on the court largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 7.4m -3.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Flawless defensive rotations and vocal leadership anchored the backline during a critical short stint. He completely sacrificed his own offense to set bone-crushing screens that freed up the primary ball-handlers. His value was entirely derived from doing the dirty work that doesn't show up in a traditional box score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 7.2m -3.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 31.2m
21
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.3

Relentless off-ball movement and sheer grit salvaged a rough perimeter shooting night. His elite hustle rating was earned through diving for loose balls and keeping critical offensive possessions alive in traffic. By constantly probing the paint and collapsing the defense, he dictated the tempo despite the jumper not falling.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +47.1
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +8.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 31.2m -16.4
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 27.1m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite perimeter containment anchored his positive rating, completely erasing his primary assignment during a crucial third-quarter stretch. The spacing he provided by knocking down timely corner jumpers forced the defense into impossible rotation choices. He maximized his touches without disrupting the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 27.1m -14.2
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Dominant interior positioning defined this outing, with his massive defensive rating stemming from verticality at the rim rather than blocked shots. Even with his perimeter jumper failing to connect at its usual clip, his sheer gravitational pull inside created wide-open driving lanes for the guards. He consistently sealed his man early in transition to generate deep post catches.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +53.2
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.1
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 26.4m -13.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 25.6m
23
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.0

Flawless shot selection fueled a massive surge in offensive efficiency, punishing drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers. He exploited mismatches mercilessly during a second-quarter run that broke the game open. The sheer lack of wasted possessions or forced attempts drove his sky-high overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 25.6m -13.4
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Josh Hart 21.8m
4
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.0

A drastic drop in offensive aggression hollowed out his overall value, as he routinely passed up open looks in the half-court. While his point-of-attack defense remained stout, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. His reluctance to attack closeouts ultimately stalled several key possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +70.5
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 21.8m -11.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Hard rolls to the rim and excellent hands in traffic resulted in a highly efficient finishing display. He anchored the backup unit by consistently walling off the paint and deterring guard penetration. This unexpected offensive surge was built entirely on converting high-percentage dump-offs and putbacks.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 21.6m -11.3
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
12
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Tunnel vision on offense and blown assignments on the other end dragged his overall rating into the red. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, easily turning the corner to collapse the defense. The isolated scoring bursts simply couldn't cover the cost of his defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.9
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 21.2m -11.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, he found soft spots in the zone to deliver a much-needed perimeter spark. His value was entirely tied to floor spacing, as he offered virtually zero resistance on the defensive end. A quick-trigger release on flare screens kept the opposing second unit scrambling.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +55.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 21.0m -11.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 20.9m
3
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.3

A disastrous string of forced shots and disrupted timing derailed the offensive flow whenever he initiated the sets. His inability to finish through contact allowed the defense to play passing lanes aggressively. While he competed hard at the point of attack, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved fatal to his impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 20.9m -10.9
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Operating strictly as a connector, he blended into the background during his short stint on the floor. He supplied adequate rotational defense but lacked the assertiveness to make the opponent pay for ignoring him offensively. A failure to look at the rim allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team others.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 9.5m -5.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Lethargic rim runs and a failure to secure defensive rebounding position severely hurt the second unit's momentum. He was consistently a step slow on drop coverage, yielding uncontested floaters in the lane. Without any hustle plays to offset his offensive invisibility, his minutes were a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 9.5m -5.0
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Making the most of a brief cameo, he injected immediate energy by decisively attacking a closeout on his first touch. His impact was purely situational, providing a quick scoring punch before the rotation shifted. He didn't log enough floor time to register defensively, but his offensive decisiveness stood out.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 4.2m -2.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0