GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 41.4m
21
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Increased scoring volume masked the negative value of defensive breakdowns and poor closeouts. He hit several momentum-swinging corner threes, but gave the points right back by losing his man on backdoor cuts. The trade-off between his offensive burst and defensive lapses resulted in a slightly negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.4m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 41.4m -24.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cooper Flagg 40.5m
18
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.6

A significant drop in scoring efficiency and forced interior shots pulled his overall impact slightly into the negative. He struggled to finish through contact against heavy rim protection, snapping a recent hot streak. Despite solid defensive rotations, the sheer volume of missed bunnies heavily taxed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 40.5m -24.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 37.1m
28
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.4

A heavy diet of forced mid-range jumpers and bricked threes minimized the impact of his high scoring total. He operated as a black hole on offense, halting ball movement to hunt his own shot against set defenses. The sheer volume of empty possessions kept his overall net impact hovering just below neutral despite the scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 37.1m -22.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Daniel Gafford 25.3m
7
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Fumbling passes in the paint and missing uncharacteristic looks at the rim derailed his usual interior efficiency. He failed to establish deep post position, allowing smaller defenders to disrupt his rhythm. The lack of offensive gravity negated his solid work securing the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 25.3m -15.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Max Christie 23.4m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Horrific shot selection from the perimeter absolutely tanked his offensive value and fueled opponent transition opportunities. He repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock, completely short-circuiting the offensive flow. While he provided decent point-of-attack resistance, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 23.4m -13.9
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive frailties at the point of attack negated a surprisingly efficient offensive breakout. He orchestrated the offense well, but died on screens repeatedly, forcing teammates into impossible rotation situations. The constant need to send help to cover his defensive breakdowns ultimately dragged his impact score into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 31.3m -18.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Flawless perimeter shooting was entirely overshadowed by defensive liabilities and a lack of secondary playmaking. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in isolation, easily blowing past his closeouts to compromise the defensive shell. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards bled far more points than his spot-up shooting created.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.0m -16.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Near-perfect shot execution and fantastic vertical spacing drove a highly positive overall showing. He capitalized on every pick-and-roll opportunity, punishing the defense for trapping the ball handler. His ability to seamlessly stretch the floor while maintaining elite interior efficiency completely warped the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 91.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 24.6m -14.6
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Stagnant off-ball movement and a complete lack of hustle metrics severely limited his effectiveness during a short stint. He settled for tough, contested looks rather than moving the defense, stalling out offensive sets. A total absence of rebounding or loose-ball recovery highlighted a highly passive performance.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 14.4m -8.5
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
LAC LA Clippers
S Darius Garland 38.9m
41
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
+19.4

An absolute masterclass in pick-and-roll navigation drove an astronomical overall impact score. He relentlessly exploited drop coverage with lethal pull-up shooting, doubling his usual scoring output while maintaining elite efficiency. His ability to dictate the pace and manipulate defensive rotations defined the entire offensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 15/24 (62.5%)
3PT 8/12 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 35.8%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +33.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +42.5
Avg player in 38.9m -23.1
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.7

A sudden scoring burst was undermined by hidden defensive costs and likely transition mistakes. Despite finding a rare rhythm from the corners, his overall impact remained negative due to poor closeouts and off-ball defensive lapses. Giving up straight-line drives negated the value of his made shots.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 37.4m -22.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 36.1m
34
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.2

A dominant perimeter shooting display anchored his massive positive impact, as he consistently punished defenders who went under screens. High-end efficiency on heavy volume masked any defensive lapses, while steady rotational awareness added value on the other end. His ability to hit contested jumpers during a key third-quarter run completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.2%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg +30.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +25.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 36.1m -21.6
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brook Lopez 34.5m
10
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Exceptional rim protection metrics couldn't fully offset the negative value of empty perimeter possessions. He anchored the paint beautifully defensively, but clanking multiple trailing threes killed offensive momentum. The disparity between his elite defensive positioning and stagnant offensive spacing ultimately resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 34.5m -20.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S John Collins 29.2m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Poor shot selection from the perimeter dragged down his overall effectiveness, snapping a streak of highly efficient outings. Settling for contested looks outside the arc neutralized his usual interior gravity. His inability to punish mismatches in the post allowed the defense to stay home on shooters.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 29.2m -17.4
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Kris Dunn 31.6m
4
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.7

Tenacious point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to salvage a severely limited offensive showing. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes and stalled the half-court offense. His inability to punish sagging defenders ultimately outweighed his excellent disruption of passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 31.6m -18.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Inefficient finishing in traffic and a failure to generate rim pressure resulted in a negative overall showing. He settled for tough, contested floaters rather than attacking the basket, dragging down his offensive value. Getting caught on screens defensively allowed open looks that further eroded his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 21.6m -12.8
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Low-volume spot-up shooting provided a minor offensive bump, but passive involvement kept his overall impact in the red. He struggled to stay attached to quicker wings in space, bleeding value on the defensive end. A lack of forceful closeouts during key defensive possessions highlighted a generally quiet stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 20.4m -12.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.3

Flawless finishing around the basket and high-energy hustle plays maximized his limited minutes. He continued a streak of dominant interior efficiency by strictly taking high-percentage looks in the dunker spot. Crashing the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that heavily boosted his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 15.3m -9.1
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1