GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Anthony Gill 30.5m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Despite hyper-efficient finishing around the basket and solid positional defense, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to poor transition tracking. He was repeatedly beaten down the floor on fast breaks, surrendering easy numbers-advantage layups. The half-court reliability couldn't mask the points bled in the open floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -48.4
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 30.5m -18.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 30.1m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-21.1

A disastrous shooting night completely torpedoed his net impact, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, magnifying the damage of his empty offensive trips. Even adequate effort fighting over screens couldn't salvage a performance defined by offensive black-hole tendencies.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -44.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 30.1m -18.2
Impact -21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 19.3m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.4

Defensive lapses and poor closeout angles consistently compromised the team's defensive shell, leading to a negative overall impact. While he found moderate success scoring off the bounce, his tunnel vision stalled ball movement and led to stagnant possessions. Opponents actively targeted him in pick-and-roll switches to exploit his lateral hesitation.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -49.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 19.3m -11.7
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyshawn George 17.9m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Exceptional length and anticipation in the passing lanes drove a massive +7.0 defensive impact score. He consistently turned defensive deflections into fast-break opportunities, maintaining a fluid offensive rhythm. Hitting timely corner threes kept the floor stretched during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -61.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 17.9m -10.9
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Bilal Coulibaly 17.2m
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.3

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+7.5 Def) completely derailed the opponent's primary offensive actions. He paired this lockdown coverage with decisive, high-efficiency spot-up shooting, punishing defenders who dared to help off him. This two-way clinic was the defining catalyst for the team's perimeter success.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.5
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 17.2m -10.4
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.6

Despite solid shooting splits and active hands on defense, his impact tanked due to poor offensive initiation and spacing issues. He frequently held the ball too long, allowing the defense to set and forcing teammates into late-clock desperation shots. The underlying metrics suggest his minutes coincided with massive opponent runs in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 34.3m -20.7
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 30.6m
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.8

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and loose ball recoveries (+6.9 Hustle) salvaged a highly inefficient shooting performance. He manufactured extra possessions through sheer willpower, offsetting the damage of his clunky perimeter attempts. His constant off-ball motion kept the defense scrambling even when his shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 30.6m -18.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

High-motor playmaking and aggressive drives into the paint created a neutral overall impact despite defensive limitations. He generated consistent rim pressure, collapsing the defense to create kick-out opportunities for shooters. However, his size disadvantage on the other end allowed opponents to shoot over him, balancing out his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 22.0m -13.3
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Hardy 21.7m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

A barrage of pull-up threes off high ball screens provided a vital scoring spark, driving his positive box impact. He showed improved patience in navigating drop coverage, taking what the defense gave him rather than forcing drives into traffic. Minor struggles containing dribble penetration kept his net score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 21.7m -13.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Aggressive downhill attacks and confident perimeter shooting provided a noticeable offensive lift. He exploited mismatches on the wing, using a quick first step to compromise the defense and generate clean looks. A completely neutral defensive showing meant his value was entirely tied to his scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 16.5m -10.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 28.4m
28
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite perimeter shot-making drove a massive offensive rating spike, forcing the defense into constant panic rotations. His gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, while solid rotational awareness on the other end (+4.6 Def) ensured his scoring translated directly to winning basketball. The sheer volume of high-value triples masked any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +58.9
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 28.4m -17.2
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S LaMelo Ball 27.5m
37
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+24.4

An absolute masterclass in transition pacing and deep perimeter shooting shattered the opponent's defensive shell. Hitting heavily contested pull-up threes at an astronomical rate broke traditional defensive coverages, forcing double-teams that he easily picked apart. The sheer mathematical advantage of his three-point barrage single-handedly drove the massive +24.4 net impact.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 10/15 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +35.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +40.9
Avg player in 27.5m -16.5
Impact +24.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 26.1m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

A lethal combination of off-the-catch shooting and decisive closeout attacks generated a massive box score impact. However, occasional defensive miscommunications on the perimeter kept his overall net rating grounded compared to his offensive explosion. His ongoing streak of hyper-efficient scoring highlights a growing mastery of his shot selection.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 26.1m -15.8
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
S Grant Williams 25.6m
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

Despite anchoring the defensive front (+9.2 Def) with physical post-ups and timely switches, offensive invisibility dragged down his overall impact. He consistently passed up open looks from the perimeter, clogging the spacing and allowing his primary defender to roam. The high hustle metrics couldn't compensate for the lack of floor-stretching gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +62.7
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 25.6m -15.5
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Complete dominance in the drop-coverage scheme neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll attack, reflected in a stellar +7.1 defensive impact. He controlled the restricted area with verticality rather than chasing blocks, securing defensive rebounds to ignite transition opportunities. High-efficiency rim-running in limited minutes maximized his on-court value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.1
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 15.2m -9.3
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Josh Green 23.3m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Timely baseline cuts and aggressive closeout attacks fueled a breakout offensive rhythm that perfectly complemented his standard defensive tenacity. His point-of-attack pressure disrupted opposing sets early in the shot clock, generating a strong +5.1 defensive score. Breaking out of a severe scoring slump provided a crucial secondary scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 23.3m -14.1
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 21.0m
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.3

A complete offensive zero whose hesitation on the perimeter allowed defenders to aggressively double the ball-handler. The lack of scoring gravity was compounded by poor navigation through off-ball screens, leading to a negative defensive impact. His minutes were defined by stagnant spacing and a failure to capitalize on defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.1
Raw total -5.6
Avg player in 21.0m -12.7
Impact -18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Perfect shot selection and opportunistic weak-side spacing yielded a highly efficient, low-usage positive impact. He capitalized on every defensive rotation by knocking down open spot-up looks without forcing the issue. Active hands in the passing lanes contributed to a steady, mistake-free performance.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 116.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 20.7m -12.6
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 20.5m
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Inefficient isolation attempts and forced jumpers off the dribble severely damaged his offensive rating. Even though he fought through screens admirably to generate a positive defensive score, the empty offensive possessions killed team momentum. The inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 20.5m -12.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 16.8m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Total inability to finish around the basket cratered his offensive value despite decent positional rebounding. Opposing bigs completely ignored him on the perimeter, packing the paint and stalling the team's half-court execution. While he battled hard on the interior (+2.7 Def), the offensive spacing issues were too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 16.8m -10.3
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Marginal impact across the board as he struggled to find a rhythm in limited action. He was largely bypassed in the offensive flow, floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention. A few solid rotational closeouts kept him from being a complete liability, but he failed to move the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -89.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 11.2m -6.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Barely saw the floor but managed to drag down the net rating with a blown rotation and a forced interior shot. The game moved too fast during his brief stint, leaving him out of position in transition defense. Failed to establish any physicality in the paint before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 3.6m -2.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1