GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Will Riley 39.7m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.2

Heavy minutes exposed his inefficiency, with a steady stream of contested jumpers dragging down the offense. The sheer volume of empty possessions and late defensive closeouts compounded into a significantly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 39.7m -19.6
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 34.7m
10
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.6

A heavy reliance on low-percentage perimeter shots stalled the offense and allowed the defense to set up in transition. Failing to penetrate the paint or collapse the defense resulted in a stagnant, highly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 34.7m -17.2
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sharife Cooper 26.9m
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Excellent shot selection and timely backdoor cuts kept the offense flowing smoothly when he was on the floor. Managing the game well, he took only what the defense gave him without turning the ball over in traffic.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 26.9m -13.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tre Johnson 24.2m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Defensive liabilities heavily outweighed his scoring contributions, as opponents repeatedly hunted him in pick-and-roll actions. Even though he found some success creating his own shot, the points he gave back in isolation sequences negated his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 24.2m -11.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 21.4m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.5

An absolutely brutal shooting night completely torpedoed his value. He short-circuited countless possessions with rushed attempts from the perimeter, and even a respectable effort in rim protection couldn't salvage the damage done by his offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 8.3%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -7.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 21.4m -10.7
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined this performance and completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. Capitalizing on the resulting chaos, he finished efficiently in transition to drive a stellar two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +12.6
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 26.6m -13.2
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 1
Jaden Hardy 24.6m
13
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

Defensive inattention and poor transition awareness erased the value of his scoring bursts. Opponents consistently beat him back down the floor, turning his made baskets into immediate counter-attacks.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 24.6m -12.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Anthony Gill 24.4m
0
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Complete offensive passivity allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team other threats. While he battled hard for position defensively, his total lack of scoring gravity severely handicapped the team's spacing in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 24.4m -11.9
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Flawless perimeter execution and elite floor-spacing punished the defense for dropping in pick-and-roll coverage. However, his overall impact was muted by defensive struggles, as he was frequently late on weak-side rim rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 98.7%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 17.5m -8.6
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
DET Detroit Pistons
S Daniss Jenkins 33.5m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.6

Disastrous shot selection cratered his overall impact. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, and the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely overshadowed any marginal effort he showed fighting over screens.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 33.5m -16.6
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 27.0m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, but defensive limitations ultimately resulted in a slightly negative impact. Opponents ruthlessly targeted him in isolation sequences, which neutralized the value of his outside shooting.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 27.0m -13.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 24.8m
24
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+22.1

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive positive impact. He consistently punished frontcourt mismatches inside, while his physical screen-setting and vertical spacing dictated the terms of engagement on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.0
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 24.8m -12.3
Impact +22.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 24.1m
10
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Defensive versatility anchored his highly positive impact, as he consistently disrupted passing lanes to generate stops. A disciplined offensive approach also boosted his value, with him capitalizing on high-percentage cuts rather than forcing action.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 24.1m -12.0
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Tobias Harris 22.0m
7
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.4

A severe drop in offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor. While his defensive positioning remained sound against bigger wings, his inability to stretch the floor stalled out crucial half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 22.0m -10.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.3

Relentless off-ball movement and elite hustle metrics highlighted an exceptional two-way effort. He blew up multiple opponent dribble hand-offs on defense while punishing closeouts with decisive, efficient decision-making.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +54.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +10.3
Defense +11.4
Raw total +34.9
Avg player in 23.3m -11.6
Impact +23.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 20.7m
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.5

Relentless energy around the basket and a soft touch on push shots translated into a highly effective performance. His activity level on the offensive glass consistently generated second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back during the second half.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 20.7m -10.2
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Caris LeVert 20.2m
14
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.4

Decisive playmaking and highly efficient perimeter execution drove a strong positive impact. By consistently breaking down the primary point of attack, he collapsed the defense to create high-quality looks for himself and others.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 20.2m -9.9
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Offensive invisibility and defensive lapses led to a noticeably negative stint during his rotation minutes. Instead of attacking the paint off the catch, he often floated on the perimeter and failed to establish any rhythm in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 19.9m -9.9
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.4

Poor perimeter execution and a lack of defensive resistance resulted in a steep negative rating. Opposing guards easily navigated around his point-of-attack pressure, and his inability to connect from deep cramped the floor offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 14.5m -7.2
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Focusing entirely on defensive assignments, he provided a brief but stable presence during his short stint. He didn't force the issue offensively, allowing the primary creators to operate while he maintained weak-side spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 5.1m -2.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Active hands and quick defensive rotations yielded a positive impact despite minimal playing time. Sacrificing his own offense, he focused entirely on locking down his perimeter matchup in a specialized defensive role.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Tolu Smith 2.5m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Executing drop coverages perfectly and finishing his lone opportunity inside allowed him to maximize a brief appearance. His physical presence in the paint deterred drives during a critical late-game stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0