March 05, 2026
EXPLORE THE GAME
Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.
UTA
2P —
3P —
WAS
2P —
3P —
UTA
WAS
UTA
PLAYER PERFORMANCE
Washington Wizards
Inefficient volume and defensive breakdowns severely punished his overall rating. Forcing contested looks from the perimeter overshadowed his unexpected jump in scoring usage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Utah Jazz
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
