GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Will Riley 38.5m
21
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite a solid box score driven by hot perimeter shooting, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive lapses and poor transition floor-balancing. He gave back too much ground on the other end, frequently losing his man on back-cuts. The heavy minute load ultimately exposed his struggles to maintain defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 38.5m -21.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bilal Coulibaly 32.7m
21
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.6

Flawless perimeter execution and decisive drives to the rim fueled a massive spike in his offensive efficiency. He attacked closeouts with purpose, completely shedding the hesitancy that plagued his recent outings. Active weak-side rotations added a strong defensive layer to a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 83.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 32.7m -18.0
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julian Reese 23.7m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Excellent interior finishing wasn't quite enough to overcome the subtle spacing issues he caused within the half-court offense. While he converted his immediate touches at a high rate, his lack of gravity allowed the defense to clog the driving lanes for others. A few missed rotations on the glass ultimately tipped his net rating slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 23.7m -13.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 23.5m
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Settling for contested, low-percentage jumpers early in the shot clock severely dragged down his offensive value. His inability to puncture the paint allowed the defense to stay home, stalling the team's overall ball movement. Without any defensive playmaking to compensate, his poor shot selection dictated a heavily negative impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 23.5m -13.0
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Trae Young 21.2m
21
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.8

Surgical dissection of the drop coverage yielded an incredibly efficient scoring night and a massive positive rating. He generated supreme value through relentless hustle and perfectly timed reads, punishing the defense every time they went under screens. The sheer quality of his offensive orchestration completely masked his typical defensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.1%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +7.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 21.2m -11.7
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Anthony Gill 31.8m
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

A severe regression in his usually reliable finishing completely derailed his offensive impact, snapping a long streak of highly efficient performances. While he provided excellent positional defense and battled hard on the interior, his inability to punish mismatches clogged the half-court spacing. The missed bunnies ultimately outweighed his gritty work on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.1
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 31.8m -17.5
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Smothering on-ball pressure defined this stint, generating a massive defensive rating that anchored his positive impact. He played strictly within himself offensively, taking only high-percentage looks at the rim when the defense collapsed. This was a textbook example of a role player maximizing his minutes through defensive intensity and offensive discipline.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +7.5
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 16.3m -9.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Falling in love with the three-point shot proved costly, as his perimeter misses led to long rebounds and easy opponent run-outs. He provided solid rim deterrence on the other end, but his poor shot selection short-circuited too many offensive possessions. The lack of interior aggression ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 15.4m -8.6
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

An inability to break down the primary defender or generate dribble penetration rendered his offensive minutes largely hollow. He was overly passive, passing up driving angles and failing to pressure the rim, which stagnated the second unit. Mild defensive liabilities further exacerbated a highly ineffective rotational shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -66.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 12.7m -7.0
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

A sharp drop-off in scoring efficiency cratered his impact during a brief, ineffective rotation. He forced the issue from beyond the arc, clanking multiple deep attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Failing to generate any defensive resistance compounded the damage from his offensive slump.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -57.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.0
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 12.2m -6.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 12.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Total offensive invisibility and defensive bleeding resulted in a disastrous negative impact score during his rotational shift. He failed to create any separation or playmaking gravity, essentially playing four-on-five on that end of the floor. Poor screen navigation on defense allowed his assignments to score at will, compounding the damage.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 12.0m -6.7
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Will Richard 32.2m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.1

A complete offensive vanishing act tanked his overall impact, as his perimeter hesitation and forced drives yielded zero production. Despite the massive shooting slump compared to his recent baseline, he managed to salvage some value through relentless off-ball activity, reflected in a stellar hustle rating. However, his inability to punish closeouts ultimately stalled the offense too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 32.2m -17.7
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.0

A relentless downhill attacking mindset resulted in a massive positive box impact, completely shattering his recent scoring averages. By abandoning the three-point line and focusing on slicing through the interior defense, he generated incredibly high-value looks at the rim. Combined with suffocating point-of-attack defense, this was a masterclass in two-way efficiency.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 30.4m -16.8
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Draymond Green 28.5m
5
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.9

Classic defensive anchoring and elite hustle metrics kept his head above water despite a brutal shooting night. His value came entirely from blowing up opponent actions and securing 50/50 balls, masking a significant dip in his recent scoring efficiency. The offensive limitations capped his ceiling, but his physical presence dictated the flow of the frontcourt battle.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +8.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 28.5m -15.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Forced attempts in the paint and a lack of rhythm from beyond the arc severely damaged his overall net rating. Coming off a dominant five-game stretch, this performance was characterized by poor finishing in traffic and an inability to break down his primary defender. Mediocre defensive contributions weren't nearly enough to offset the wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 28.3m -15.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Gui Santos 27.9m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.4

Elite shot selection and perimeter efficiency drove a highly positive offensive rating, continuing a hot streak of high-percentage execution. He consistently punished defensive rotations from deep, maximizing his touches without forcing the issue. Steady positional defense ensured his scoring punch translated directly to a winning margin.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 27.9m -15.5
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
30
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.5

Absolute dominance as a rim-protecting deterrent laid the foundation for a monster overall rating. He leveraged his size perfectly in the pick-and-pop, punishing switches inside even when his outside shot wasn't falling. This massive surge in offensive volume compared to his recent baseline completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.3
Raw total +35.7
Avg player in 25.7m -14.2
Impact +21.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Capitalizing on backdoor cuts and transition leak-outs allowed him to maintain his blistering recent shooting efficiency. He completely avoided settling for jumpers, instead generating all his value at the basket while the defense was scrambling. Disruptive hands in the passing lanes provided the necessary defensive boost to cement a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 23.6m -13.0
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Pat Spencer 21.9m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Inconsistent finishing inside the arc neutralized what was otherwise a steady playmaking and perimeter shooting performance. While he navigated screens well defensively to post a strong rating on that end, his inability to convert floaters and layups left too many points on the board. The resulting flat net impact perfectly reflects a night of traded momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 21.9m -12.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Malevy Leons 15.7m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Opportunistic scoring around the basket drove a highly efficient, low-usage stint that easily exceeded his typical production. He didn't force any actions, simply capitalizing on defensive breakdowns and dump-off passes to generate value. A quiet but mistake-free defensive shift ensured his offensive burst stayed in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 15.7m -8.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brief, disjointed cameo derailed his recent hot streak, as he failed to find the rhythm of the game. Rushed attempts against set defenses resulted in empty trips during his limited floor time. He simply couldn't get integrated into the offensive flow before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +85.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Managed to squeak out a slightly positive rating in garbage time solely through drawing fouls and converting at the line. He offered zero resistance defensively during his brief stint, allowing easy penetration. The microscopic sample size prevents any meaningful takeaways beyond his free-throw execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0