GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 41.5m
27
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.6

A classic case of empty calories, where high-volume scoring completely masked the damage done by sloppy ball security. Repeatedly giving away possessions via live-ball turnovers fueled opponent transition runs and tanked his net impact despite the gaudy offensive totals.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.5m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 41.5m -25.5
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S CJ McCollum 36.7m
27
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.0

Settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups and a lack of secondary hustle plays dragged his overall value into the negative. The scoring output looks impressive on paper, but the sheer number of wasted possessions and defensive passivity hurt the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 36.7m -22.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Capitalized on high-percentage looks around the basket and provided sturdy interior defense to anchor the frontcourt. While a few defensive miscommunications slightly dampened his overall ceiling, his efficient finishing kept his impact firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 33.3m -20.5
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyshawn George 26.4m
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.6

Knockdown shooting from the wings was ultimately undone by hidden mistakes, likely a string of costly turnovers or transition fouls. He provided great energy on loose balls, but a lack of overall discipline kept his final impact score hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 26.4m -16.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Wasted possessions through forced perimeter looks and likely live-ball turnovers dragged his overall rating into the red. Even though he showed flashes of decent rotational defense, his inability to convert or protect the ball proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 17.9m -11.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Maximized his touches with pristine shot selection, punishing defensive rotations with timely perimeter makes. His hyper-efficient scoring and reliable defensive rotations established a strong, positive baseline for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 107.1%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 29.5m -18.2
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Will Riley 23.4m
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Extreme offensive passivity allowed the defense to play five-on-four, crippling the team's half-court execution. Even though he contributed positively on the defensive end, his reluctance to look for his own shot created a negative ripple effect on the offense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 23.4m -14.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Tre Johnson 16.7m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Completely derailed the offense during his minutes by forcing ill-advised shots early in the shot clock. His inability to find the bottom of the net, combined with likely spacing issues, resulted in a severely damaging overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -33.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 16.7m -10.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Generated exceptional value by consistently drawing contact in the paint and getting to the foul line. His ability to manufacture easy points and maintain solid defensive positioning made him a highly effective rotation piece during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -43.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 14.7m -9.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 36.2m
23
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.0

Anchored the interior with a massive defensive rating that completely disrupted the opponent's rim attempts. However, his overall ceiling was capped by forcing too many contested looks in the paint, leaving points on the board despite his elite rim protection.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +8.2
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 36.2m -22.3
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Darius Garland 35.3m
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.6

Brutal perimeter inefficiency completely torpedoed his overall rating, as he kept firing away from deep despite never finding a rhythm. Even a highly disruptive defensive performance couldn't salvage the massive negative swing caused by his wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 0/11 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 44.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 35.3m -21.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
48
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.2

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency and shot creation that completely overwhelmed the primary defender. His ability to generate high-quality looks from deep while still contributing heavily on the defensive end resulted in a dominant, game-defining impact score.

Shooting
FG 17/31 (54.8%)
3PT 8/15 (53.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 41.1%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +32.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +43.0
Avg player in 35.2m -21.8
Impact +21.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylon Tyson 30.9m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Efficient shot selection kept his base value high, but hidden negative plays significantly dragged down his overall impact. A likely string of defensive lapses or unforced turnovers in the half-court prevented him from capitalizing on his high-percentage looks.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.1%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 30.9m -19.2
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Andre Hunter 27.1m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Shot selection was a major detriment, as he repeatedly settled for contested perimeter looks that killed offensive momentum. The lack of secondary contributions in hustle or defensive metrics meant his cold shooting directly tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 27.1m -16.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 24.1m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Elite point-of-attack defense and constant disruption in the passing lanes salvaged a night where his jumper was entirely broken. He managed to stay in the green purely through relentless hustle plays and shutting down his primary assignment on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +48.9
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +9.8
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 24.1m -14.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Dean Wade 22.7m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Operating as an offensive ghost allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint against his teammates. While his positional defense remained fundamentally sound, his absolute lack of scoring gravity severely damaged the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 5.2%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 22.7m -14.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.2

Provided a massive spark off the bench by playing mistake-free basketball and locking in defensively. His ability to execute perfectly within his role and pressure the ball handler yielded an incredibly high per-minute impact rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 10.8m -6.7
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Defensive breakdowns defined his brief time on the floor, consistently losing his man on back-door cuts. The combination of blown coverages and empty offensive trips resulted in a steep negative impact during his short rotation window.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.6
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 10.1m -6.2
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a brief rotation stint, likely bleeding value through poor pick-and-roll positioning. A lack of defensive resistance at the rim quickly negated the minor positive contributions he made on the glass.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 7.6m -4.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1