GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Will Riley 37.3m
21
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

High-level shot creation kept the offense afloat, though defensive lapses in transition slightly muted his overall impact. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, collapsing the defense to generate quality looks. However, slow recovery times after missed assignments prevented his rating from matching his impressive scoring output.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 37.3m -21.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bub Carrington 37.2m
30
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

An absolute flamethrower performance from the perimeter stretched the opposing defense past its breaking point. He punished defenders for going under screens with lethal precision, forcing schematic adjustments that opened up the floor for everyone else. This massive leap in scoring aggression single-handedly kept the team within striking distance.

Shooting
FG 12/16 (75.0%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +28.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 37.2m -21.6
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Crashing the weak-side glass with relentless energy created vital extra possessions that swung the momentum. He punished late closeouts by decisively attacking the rim, continuing a recent trend of highly efficient finishing. That combination of opportunistic scoring and physical rebounding provided a steadying presence for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 29.0m -16.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 64.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 24.2m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.2

A barrage of contested, low-percentage jumpers completely derailed the team's offensive rhythm. He repeatedly forced the issue against set defenses rather than moving the ball, leading to long rebounds and easy fast-break points for the opposition. Compounding the issue, his slow defensive closeouts allowed shooters to get comfortable from deep.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 24.2m -14.1
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Gill 16.2m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Complete passivity on the offensive end allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team other threats. Despite executing his defensive rotations cleanly, his reluctance to look for his own shot bogged down the half-court execution. That lack of offensive gravity ultimately resulted in a negative stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 16.2m -9.3
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jaden Hardy 31.8m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Tunnel vision on drives into the paint led to several blocked shots and empty possessions that stalled the offense. Even though he found some success spotting up from the perimeter, his insistence on challenging rim protectors in isolation dragged down his efficiency. The resulting empty trips allowed the opposition to build momentum during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 31.8m -18.3
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.0

Sloppy ball security in traffic severely undercut his playmaking contributions and fueled opponent transition runs. While he generated decent rim pressure, his tendency to leave his feet before making a passing read resulted in costly live-ball giveaways. Those unforced errors completely erased the value of his otherwise active hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 27.2m -15.7
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Failing to connect from beyond the arc allowed opposing bigs to camp in the lane and disrupt the team's driving angles. He provided decent resistance as a drop defender, but his inability to stretch the floor offensively cramped the spacing for the primary ball-handlers. That lack of perimeter gravity resulted in a slightly negative overall stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 18.7m -10.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Elite rotational defense and constant energy on loose balls defined a highly disruptive, albeit offensively quiet, performance. He completely deferred on the offensive end, refusing to look at the rim and allowing his defender to clog the passing lanes. While his defensive metrics were spectacular, the extreme lack of offensive aggression kept his overall impact marginally negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 18.3m -10.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
DET Detroit Pistons
S Jalen Duren 30.9m
36
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+26.6

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a staggering positive impact rating. He consistently sealed his man early in the shot clock, converting deep post position into high-percentage looks and drawing fouls at a massive rate. The sheer gravity of his interior finishing warped the opponent's defensive shell all night.

Shooting
FG 13/17 (76.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +35.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +44.5
Avg player in 30.9m -17.9
Impact +26.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 27.4m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.0

Defensive lapses and poor floor spacing severely hampered his overall effectiveness. While he generated some positive hustle plays, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint against Detroit's primary creators. The massive gap between his positive box metrics and deeply negative total impact points to costly off-ball mistakes and blown coverages.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 27.4m -15.8
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 27.3m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.9

Playmaking and defensive discipline salvaged a rough shooting night where his perimeter jumper abandoned him. He consistently made the right extra pass against rotating defenses, keeping the offense flowing even when his own isolation attempts stalled. That secondary creation stabilized the half-court offense and kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 27.3m -15.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 26.3m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Hesitancy to let it fly from deep neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. Despite generating excellent hustle metrics by fighting through screens, the offense bogged down because defenders felt comfortable sagging off him. Those empty offensive possessions ultimately dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 26.3m -15.2
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

A highly efficient micro-stint set a positive tone before he exited the game early. He methodically picked apart the drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, getting to his spots with ease. The brief flash of defensive engagement also helped secure a quick positive margin.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 5.3m -3.1
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.4

Bleeding points at the point of attack on defense completely overshadowed his improved perimeter stroke. Opposing guards consistently blew past his initial pressure, forcing the defense into scramble mode and leading to easy rotation buckets. That inability to contain dribble penetration resulted in a disastrous overall rating during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 25.2m -14.5
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Errant perimeter shooting severely punished the team's drive-and-kick game, tanking his overall impact. Opponents aggressively stunted off him on the wing, daring him to shoot and clogging the driving lanes for everyone else. While he chipped in with active hands in the passing lanes, the offensive spacing issues were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 22.4m -12.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.0

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll completely unlocked the offense while he was on the floor. He consistently manipulated the defense with his eyes, delivering pinpoint passes to rollers and shooters alike. Adding in tenacious point-of-attack defense, he dictated the tempo on both ends of the court.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +30.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 20.8m -12.0
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Caris LeVert 20.7m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Ill-timed turnovers in the half-court negated what was otherwise a highly efficient scoring night. He forced several passes into tight windows against set defenses, sparking quick transition opportunities going the other way. Despite strong individual defensive metrics, those offensive miscues kept his overall impact slightly below water.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 20.7m -12.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.7

Relentless energy as an on-ball disruptor fueled a massive swing in momentum during his second-half stint. He converted defensive stops directly into transition run-outs, showcasing elite finishing through contact. That combination of lockdown perimeter defense and opportunistic scoring made him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 15.2m -8.8
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 13.5m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Capitalizing on offensive rebounding opportunities allowed him to generate high-value second-chance points. He consistently outworked bigger matchups in the paint, maintaining his recent streak of hyper-efficient interior finishing. This rugged interior presence provided a crucial stabilizing element for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 13.5m -7.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Forcing difficult shots early in the shot clock derailed the offensive flow during his brief appearance. By settling for contested perimeter looks instead of moving the ball, he handed the opponent several easy rebounding opportunities. That poor shot selection quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 5.0m -2.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0