GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 28.0m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Settling for low-percentage, contested three-pointers severely damaged his offensive efficiency and overall impact. While he provided solid resistance at the point of attack defensively, his erratic shot selection wasted too many crucial possessions. His inability to penetrate the defense and create easier looks ultimately hurt the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 28.0m -14.8
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
S Bilal Coulibaly 23.1m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.6

Smothering perimeter defense and excellent rotational awareness drove a highly positive impact score. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and turned defensive stops into transition opportunities, anchoring the wing defense. Playing within himself offensively allowed his elite physical tools to shine without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 23.1m -12.2
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 19.2m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Chucking contested jumpers and failing to connect from deep dragged his net impact into the red. He operated with tunnel vision on offense, stalling ball movement to hunt his own inefficient looks. A lack of secondary hustle plays meant he offered very little value when his shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 19.2m -10.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 18.9m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Inefficient volume and poor shot selection from the perimeter heavily penalized his overall rating. He repeatedly forced action against set defenses instead of moving the ball, short-circuiting the offensive flow. Despite showing some flashes of competent on-ball defense, his wasted offensive possessions defined his stint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 18.9m -10.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.7

An absolute masterclass in paint deterrence and rim protection generated a staggering defensive rating. He completely walled off the restricted area, altering numerous shots while also stretching the floor efficiently on the other end. This rare combination of vertical spacing and elite rim defense made him the most impactful player on the court.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +17.0
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 17.4m -9.1
Impact +24.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 0
Anthony Gill 30.6m
13
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.1

Veteran savvy and relentless activity on the glass fueled a massive positive rating across all categories. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown with perfectly timed cuts, punishing the opposition without needing plays called for him. Anchoring the frontcourt with high-IQ rotations and physical box-outs defined this stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +5.6
Defense +8.4
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 30.6m -16.1
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Methodical rim pressure and superb shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He consistently bullied his way to his spots, refusing to settle for low-percentage looks on the perimeter. This disciplined approach to generating high-value paint touches anchored his positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 29.4m -15.6
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Passive decision-making and an inability to pressure the rim resulted in a negative overall footprint. Despite showing active hands and decent hustle, his reluctance to attack off the dribble allowed the defense to sag off and clog passing lanes. Failing to generate downhill momentum severely limited his effectiveness as a playmaker.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 27.7m -14.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.3

An inability to convert in the paint or connect from deep severely punished his overall impact score. While he successfully generated looks for others and competed hard defensively, his own empty shooting possessions acted as dead weight. Defenders consistently went under screens, daring him to shoot and effectively bogging down the half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 24.1m -12.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Jaden Hardy 18.1m
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Tunnel vision and forced isolation attempts neutralized the value of his perimeter shot-making. By failing to record a single assist, he allowed the defense to load up against his drives, leading to highly contested misses at the rim. His score-first mentality ultimately disrupted the offensive flow enough to drag his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 18.1m -9.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 3.7m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Maximized a very brief rotational stint by executing perfectly within the flow of the offense. He provided an instant spark of efficient scoring, attacking the defense decisively before returning to the bench. Though the sample size was tiny, his zero-mistake approach yielded a highly positive net return.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 90.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +55.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 3.7m -1.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 29.6m
19
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.2

Elite defensive disruption and relentless activity on 50/50 balls kept his head above water despite a brutal shooting night. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers cratered his offensive efficiency and snapped a highly efficient four-game streak. His sheer physical presence as a weak-side roamer ultimately salvaged a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 29.6m -15.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ben Sheppard 27.0m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Lethal spot-up execution and pristine shot selection fueled a massive box score impact. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by burying high-value corner looks, punishing the opposition without forcing his own offense. Adding stout point-of-attack defense to this offensive breakout resulted in a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 27.0m -14.3
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 21.6m
5
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-19.2

A complete collapse in offensive initiation and poor shot quality resulted in a catastrophic overall rating. Stagnating the offense with aimless dribbling and forced attempts snapped his recent string of productive outings. His inability to generate advantages at the point of attack bled into a lethargic defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense -8.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.6
Raw total -7.8
Avg player in 21.6m -11.4
Impact -19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jay Huff 20.7m
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.1

Dominant interior rim protection anchored a massive defensive rating that drove his highly positive overall score. While his perimeter shot selection left much to be desired, his vertical spacing and paint deterrence more than compensated for the clanked deep balls. Controlling the restricted area defined his minutes and masked the inefficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.8
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 20.7m -10.9
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 14.8m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Offensive invisibility completely tanked his overall impact, as empty possessions derailed the team's half-court rhythm. Missing every perimeter look forced the offense to play 4-on-5, neutralizing his otherwise passable hustle metrics. This stark regression from his recent scoring tear made him a net negative during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 14.8m -7.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 33.1m
12
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Strong raw production was entirely undone by hidden costs, likely stemming from poor transition defense and costly live-ball mistakes. Even though he found success scoring within the flow of the offense, yielding easy baskets on the other end dragged his net rating into the red. His failure to close out on shooters ultimately negated a solid offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 33.1m -17.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Micah Potter 27.3m
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Soft interior resistance and a failure to anchor the paint allowed opponents to score at will, plunging his overall impact into the negative. He found decent success operating in pick-and-pop situations, but gave it all right back on the defensive end. Being consistently targeted in the pick-and-roll defined his struggles during this matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 27.3m -14.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.9

Forcing contested shots and completely stalling the offensive execution resulted in a disastrous net rating. Although he competed hard on defense and chased loose balls, his inability to convert at the rim destroyed any lineup spacing. His offensive possessions were essentially turnovers, making him a severe liability on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 26.8m -14.2
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Taelon Peter 25.1m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Over-reliance on the three-point shot yielded high variance results that ultimately hurt the team's offensive flow. While his active hands generated solid defensive metrics, settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts dragged down his net score. His one-dimensional shot profile allowed the defense to easily key in on his tendencies.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 25.1m -13.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Kam Jones 14.0m
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Passive offensive involvement limited his overall footprint, keeping his impact slightly negative despite flawless shooting execution. He failed to assert himself as a primary option, blending into the background during his rotational stint. A lack of aggressive downhill drives prevented him from tilting the floor in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 14.0m -7.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1