GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 32.9m
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

A brutal shooting night from beyond the arc cratered his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested looks against tight coverage. The sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed his baseline gravity, allowing the defense to consistently leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 32.9m -18.7
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite solid defensive reads and efficient mid-range execution, his overall impact was dragged into the negative by costly live-ball mistakes. The offense stagnated during his primary initiation stretches, allowing the opposition to capitalize on transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 31.7m -18.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moses Moody 30.5m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Tremendous effort on the margins was ultimately undone by a sharp regression in his scoring aggression. He passed up several drivable closeouts, settling into a passive off-ball role that stalled the team's half-court momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +5.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 30.5m -17.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Draymond Green 27.6m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Offensive spacing issues and forced perimeter shots severely damaged his net rating in this contest. While his trademark hustle remained intact through physical screens and loose ball recoveries, the lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 27.6m -15.7
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quinten Post 13.6m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Settling for low-percentage outside looks undermined his offensive efficiency and kept his impact in the negative. He provided adequate weak-side rim deterrence, but the wasted possessions on the perimeter proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 13.6m -7.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.2

Errant perimeter shooting and a noticeable dip in his usual offensive assertiveness resulted in a slightly negative net rating. While he rebounded well for his position, his inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to comfortably pack the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 28.4m -16.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Gritty perimeter defense and active hands in the passing lanes kept his impact positive despite a rough shooting night. He compensated for his offensive inefficiency by consistently blowing up dribble hand-offs and disrupting the opponent's timing.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +37.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 24.1m -13.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.5

Point-of-attack defensive disruption defined his highly effective rotation minutes. He perfectly executed his role as an energy-shifter, turning backcourt pressure into easy transition opportunities without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 14.5m -8.2
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Will Richard 12.7m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Active rebounding and a relentless motor were slightly offset by poor shot selection from beyond the arc. Rushing his perimeter looks prevented him from finding an offensive rhythm, leaving his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 12.7m -7.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.5

Flawless execution as a roll man and vertical spacer generated a massive positive impact in limited action. He capitalized on every defensive rotation, finishing with authority at the rim while providing sturdy interior defense on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +27.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 12.6m -7.1
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Al Horford 11.4m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.5

A masterclass in floor-spacing and positional defense yielded an astronomical impact in under a quarter of play. Punishing late closeouts with lethal three-point shooting, he simultaneously anchored the backline with veteran defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 11.4m -6.5
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 36.0m
27
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.4

Relentless rim pressure and elite shot selection inside the arc drove a massive positive impact. Continuing his recent scoring tear, he consistently collapsed the defense to create high-value opportunities while adding solid hustle metrics to secure extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 36.0m -20.6
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 34.1m
14
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite defensive metrics anchored his positive overall impact, stifling opponents on the perimeter and in the paint. He supplemented this with highly efficient interior finishing, largely abandoning the three-point shot to focus on high-percentage looks.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +13.0
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 34.1m -19.3
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 27.8m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

Inefficient shot selection and forced attempts cratered his overall impact despite decent scoring volume. The inability to convert on contested looks negated his baseline contributions, resulting in a severely negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 27.8m -15.8
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 16.8m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

Defensive lapses and an inability to generate meaningful offensive flow resulted in a steep negative impact during his rotation minutes. He struggled to stay in front of his matchups, bleeding points on the other end without providing enough playmaking to compensate.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 16.8m -9.6
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Davis 10.9m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

A brief stint on the floor was defined entirely by rim protection and defensive deterrence. While his offensive rhythm never materialized due to missed jumpers, his sheer presence in the paint kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 10.9m -6.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Max Christie 33.5m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Exceptional hustle metrics and active hands kept his head above water in a game where hidden mistakes nearly tanked his value. His knack for extending possessions via loose ball recoveries barely offset the damage from poorly timed fouls and turnovers.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 33.5m -19.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
26
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

An unexpected offensive explosion fueled a stellar box score impact, as he relentlessly attacked defensive gaps for high-percentage conversions. Capitalizing on defensive miscommunications, he shattered his recent scoring averages with pristine shot selection.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 29.9m -17.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Perimeter struggles and an inability to find separation off screens severely limited his offensive gravity. Despite respectable defensive positioning, his lack of scoring punch and missed perimeter looks dragged his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 26.3m -15.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A stark drop in offensive involvement limited his ability to influence the game, even though he converted every look he was given around the basket. Without his usual volume of rim-running opportunities, his overall impact slipped slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -43.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 15.4m -8.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-energy rotations and constant off-ball movement defined this brief stint off the bench. His positive hustle rating reflects a willingness to do the dirty work, keeping his net impact above water despite minimal touches.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 9.3m -5.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1