GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bilal Coulibaly 33.5m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.6

A complete lack of offensive rhythm resulted in a highly detrimental performance. He hesitated on open looks and drove into crowded paint, leading to empty possessions that stalled the offense. The severe drop in scoring aggression defined a very rough night.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.7
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 33.5m -19.1
Impact -18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Bub Carrington 28.6m
13
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Settled for too many low-percentage pull-up threes, dragging down his offensive efficiency. While his hustle metrics were excellent, defensive breakdowns at the point of attack allowed easy penetration. The poor shot selection from deep ultimately drove his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 28.6m -16.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Alex Sarr 25.8m
12
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.1

Defensive miscommunications and giving up deep post position hurt his overall rating despite solid counting stats. He struggled to finish cleanly in traffic, missing several high-value looks at the rim. The negative impact score reflects the defensive concessions that offset his rebounding work.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 25.8m -14.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 72.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Overcame poor perimeter shooting by crashing the offensive glass and generating extra possessions. His defensive versatility helped neutralize opposing wings during crucial stretches. The hustle plays ultimately outweighed the negative value of his missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 24.9m -14.1
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 19.1m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

Kept his impact afloat through active perimeter defense and timely three-point shooting. However, a tendency to force contested drives tanked his overall field goal efficiency. The defensive effort salvaged what was otherwise an erratic offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 19.1m -10.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Provided a crucial spark with high-energy cuts and relentless activity on the boards. His defensive switchability disrupted the opponent's offensive flow in the second half. A disciplined approach to shot selection allowed him to maximize his offensive opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 33.4m -19.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Will Riley 20.9m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Failed to create separation against physical defense, leading to a sharp decline from his recent scoring surge. His tunnel vision on offense resulted in zero assists and several forced attempts late in the clock. Despite decent defensive metrics, his inability to generate quality looks torpedoed his rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -64.7
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 20.9m -11.9
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

Over-dribbling and poor spatial awareness led to stalled possessions when he ran the point. While he finished efficiently when he did shoot, his inability to organize the offense hurt the team's overall flow. The negative impact score highlights the hidden costs of his stagnant playmaking.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -67.3
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 20.4m -11.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Blistering perimeter shooting masked significant defensive liabilities in pick-and-roll coverage. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, bleeding points on the other end of the floor. The defensive bleed ultimately negated his excellent floor-spacing value.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 19.9m -11.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Looked completely lost within the offensive system, failing to register a single meaningful contribution. His passive approach allowed defenders to play five-on-four, crippling the team's spacing. A highly ineffective stint defined by a total lack of aggression.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.8%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 13.4m -7.6
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 28.1m
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.7

Completely dominated the interior matchups, bouncing back from a recent shooting slump with highly efficient rim finishes. His massive defensive impact stemmed from blowing up pick-and-rolls and deterring drives at the basket. The combination of elite rim protection and high-quality shot selection resulted in a monster overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +64.2
+/- +41
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +14.9
Raw total +35.7
Avg player in 28.1m -16.0
Impact +19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Norman Powell 25.0m
21
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

A heavy reliance on the three-point shot yielded mixed overall results, as his perimeter volume masked a lack of playmaking. Defensive limitations and a failure to generate looks for others kept his total impact barely above neutral despite the scoring punch. His ability to stretch the floor was valuable, but the one-dimensional approach capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 25.0m -14.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 24.9m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.9

Offensive passivity and poor shot creation cratered his overall impact rating. He failed to initiate the offense effectively, leading to stagnant possessions and a steep drop from his recent scoring output. Even his usually reliable point-of-attack defense couldn't salvage a highly detrimental stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 24.9m -14.1
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andrew Wiggins 23.4m
11
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.3

Defensive engagement drove his high impact score, anchoring the wing with active hands and strong closeouts to disrupt passing lanes. While his interior finishing struggled, he compensated by hitting timely perimeter shots to space the floor. His relentless work on the glass created crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.5
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 23.4m -13.5
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Myron Gardner 21.0m
10
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.4

Outperformed his recent scoring average by attacking closeouts effectively and finding open teammates. His defensive activity and solid perimeter shooting kept his impact firmly in the positive. A noticeable step up in offensive aggression defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 21.0m -11.9
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kel'el Ware 29.8m
19
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.4

Capitalized on physical mismatches in the paint to more than double his recent scoring average. His strong positional rebounding and efficient interior touches fueled a highly productive outing. Defensive rotations were solid enough to ensure his offensive explosion translated to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 29.8m -16.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
22
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+18.4

Delivered a masterclass in shot selection, punishing defensive lapses with perfect execution from beyond the arc. His flawless perimeter shooting completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme, opening up passing lanes. A massive leap in confidence and execution drove an elite overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 6/6 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +53.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +22.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 25.9m -14.9
Impact +18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-19.4

Forced terrible shots in traffic all night, resulting in a disastrous shooting performance that killed offensive momentum. The sheer volume of missed attempts completely overshadowed his decent passing reads. A stark regression from his recent form, defined by an inability to finish through contact.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense -7.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -6.0
Avg player in 23.5m -13.4
Impact -19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.0

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by taking decisive, in-rhythm attempts rather than hesitating. His exceptional defensive awareness disrupted passing lanes and sparked transition opportunities. This two-way efficiency made him one of the most impactful role players of the night.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +82.1
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.2
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 19.1m -10.9
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief stint, forcing a couple of contested looks late in the clock. His inability to generate offense for others compounded the negative impact of his missed shots. Mostly a non-factor whose minutes were defined by offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 8.0m -4.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Made the most of limited garbage-time minutes by moving the ball crisply and cutting with purpose. Quick decision-making allowed him to register a positive impact despite the short leash. A brief but effective showcase of his offensive connectivity.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 5.6m -3.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 5.6m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Brought decent energy on the defensive end but was completely ignored by the opposing defense. His reluctance to attack the basket allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. The lack of scoring gravity kept his brief appearance slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 5.6m -3.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0