GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Leaky Black 39.3m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.0

Inefficient volume and defensive breakdowns severely punished his overall rating. Forcing contested looks from the perimeter overshadowed his unexpected jump in scoring usage.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 39.3m -21.8
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 69.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Julian Reese 38.5m
18
pts
20
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

Absolute dominance on the interior and elite finishing around the basket generated a massive positive footprint. Controlling the glass effectively neutralized opponent second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.6%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +36.2
Avg player in 38.5m -21.4
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 34.1m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Despite highly efficient finishing and strong defensive metrics, hidden mistakes like live-ball turnovers or foul trouble dragged his net score into the red. His two-way activity was impressive, but those underlying errors proved costly.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 34.1m -18.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 20.1m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Over-reliance on the three-point shot and poor finishing inside the arc limited his overall value. While the perimeter stroke was working, empty possessions elsewhere kept him in the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 20.1m -11.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Trae Young 19.0m
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.6

Cold perimeter shooting suppressed his offensive impact during a brief stint. Surprisingly, active defensive rotations kept his net rating from dropping further into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 19.0m -10.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Anthony Gill 33.5m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Perfect shooting efficiency and solid defensive positioning were entirely offset by hidden costs like turnovers or fouls, yielding a flat impact rating. He operated strictly within his role, but those underlying mistakes erased his statistical contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 33.5m -18.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 25.4m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.4

Forced shots and a lack of defensive resistance tanked his net rating. A noticeable regression from his recent scoring efficiency left the offense stalling during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 25.4m -14.0
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Defensive liabilities and a lack of overall involvement resulted in a steep negative score. He struggled to stay in front of his assignments, bleeding points on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -51.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.5
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 15.5m -8.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaden Hardy 11.1m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Disastrous shot selection and an inability to convert open looks severely damaged his offensive rating. The sheer volume of missed attempts outweighed any marginal defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 11.1m -6.2
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Barely saw the floor, but managed to post a negative rating due to an empty offensive possession. He failed to generate any positive momentum in a microscopic sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S John Konchar 36.7m
0
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Complete offensive invisibility dragged down his overall score despite elite defensive metrics. He kept himself somewhat relevant through sheer hustle and off-ball disruption, even while failing to convert a single field goal.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +7.3
Defense +11.8
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 36.7m -20.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cody Williams 36.0m
13
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.1

Elite shot selection and high-motor defensive plays drove a strong positive impact. Capitalizing on limited touches, he converted almost perfectly from the floor to maximize his offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 36.0m -20.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 32.6m
32
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.1

Perimeter shot-making completely warped the defense, generating a massive box score impact. The sheer volume of highly efficient three-point shooting masked any secondary deficiencies in his floor game.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 32.6m -18.1
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 30.9m
20
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.7

Interior dominance and relentless efficiency at the rim anchored this positive overall rating. His defensive positioning and massive rebounding volume created a two-way footprint that suffocated the opposition.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 30.9m -17.1
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Isaiah Collier 29.1m
27
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
+5.1

Slicing through the defense for high-percentage looks drove a strong offensive rating. However, a lack of defensive resistance limited his ceiling despite the heavy playmaking volume.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 29.1m -16.2
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.7

Poor shot selection and bricked perimeter looks severely penalized his net rating. High-effort defensive rotations and hustle plays were the only things preventing his score from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 23.9m -13.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Blake Hinson 21.9m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

A noticeable dip in his usual scoring efficiency capped his overall impact. He maintained a slight positive rating by contributing through hustle plays rather than relying solely on his jumper.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 21.9m -12.2
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mo Bamba 17.1m
6
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Dominating the glass in limited minutes fueled a highly efficient stint. Keeping things simple offensively allowed him to maximize his physical advantages and secure extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 17.1m -9.4
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

A complete lack of offensive production combined with defensive lapses resulted in a steep negative impact. Failing to find any rhythm, he bled value during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -2.1
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 11.9m -6.7
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0